My ambition in philosophy is not modest. I partly hate to declare my ambition because if I write quietly to myself, from an 'underdog' position, one essay at a time, I create no hype, no 'illusions of grandeur' or lofty expectations, allowing my work to hopefully sneak up on the reader in a good way -- again, one essay at a time.
However, if you look at the (evolving) table of contents of Hegel's Hotel, and you are familiar with the history of philosophy at all, you will see that in 'the breadth and scope of its integrative subject matter', Hegel's Hotel is arguably the most ambitious project that any one philosopher -- from Thales to present day -- has ever dared to tackle in one project, one treatise, one interconnected network of hopefully somewhere between five hundred and a thousand essays when it is all through -- perhaps more, God willing relative to the extent of my health and energy.
There have been many prolific writers -- philosophers and psychologists -- some of whom I will never come close to in terms of the shear volume of their work. I look at some philosophers like Spinoza (1632-1645, died at 45 years old), Kierkegaard (1813-1855, died at 42), and Nietzsche (1844-1900, died at 56, stopped writing and institutionalized by 50) -- and they were either dead and buried or institutionalized in the case of Nietzsche before I even started to tap my keys here to begin 'Hegel's Hotel'.
Diderot was the centrepiece of an 'Enlightenment' philosophical project that will probably never be duplicated but he had lots of help -- many other great philosophers helped him with his wonderous 'Encyclopedie' accomplishment. (See Diderot, The French Enlightenment).
.................................................................................
From the internet (Wikipedia)...
Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers (English: "Encyclopedia, or a systematic dictionary of the sciences, arts, and crafts") was a general encyclopedia published in France between 1751 and 1772, with later supplements and revisions in 1772, 1777 and 1780 and numerous foreign editions and later derivatives.
Its introduction, the Preliminary Discourse, is considered an important exposition of Enlightenment ideals. The Encyclopédie's self-professed aim was "to change the way people think." Denis Diderot explained the goal of the project as "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings."[1]
..................................................................................
Kant 'disappeared' (to the inside of his home mainly, I presume) for around 8 or 9 years to write his masterpiece 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. That kind of individual dedication and perseverence will probably never be duplicated -- as will the finished product.
.................................................................................
From the internet, Wikipedia...
The Critique of Pure Reason (German: Kritik der reinen Vernunft), first published in 1781 (A) with a second edition (B) in 1787, is the most widely read work of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and is widely regarded as one of the most influential in the history of philosophy. It is often referred to as Kant's "first critique," and was followed by the Critique of Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgement.
.................................................................................
Hegel's masterpiece -- 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' (1807)-- is in my personal opinion, the most important and influential philosophical work in the history of Western philosophy.
................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) is one of G.W.F. Hegel's most important philosophical works. Translated as The Phenomenology of Spirit or The Phenomenology of Mind due to the dual meaning in the German word Geist, it formed the basis of Hegel's later philosophy and marked a significant development in German idealism after Kant. Focusing on topics in metaphysics, epistemology, physics, ethics, theory of knowledge, history, religion, perception, consciousness, and political philosophy, the Phenomenology is where Hegel develops his concepts of dialectic (including the Master-slave dialectic), absolute idealism, ethical life, and sublation. The book had profound effect in Western philosophy (particularly in the development of Marxism), and "has been praised and blamed for the development of existentialism, communism, fascism, death of God theology, and historicist nihilism."[1]
..................................................................................
My work here -- Hegel's Hotel: DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy-Psychology -- aims to bring the best out in Hegel's philosophy, not the worst... I aim to 'concretize' it, 'humanize' it, and 'existentialize' it...in ways that have partly been done before by different theorists and therapists: Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy), Freud (Psychoanalysis), Jung (Jungian Psychology), Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Derrida (Deconstruction), Foucault (The History of Power)...but Hegel's Hotel aims to put everything above together into one huge integrative project...
There have been many prolific, and brilliant, Western philosophical writers, too many to mention right here but many if not most of them will be covered in Hegel's Hotel -- Plato, Aristotle, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Foucault, Ayn Rand, and that is not even touching other cultures... Furthermore, there have been a host of brilliant and prolific psychology writers such as: Freud, Jung, Adler, Fromm, Perls...and more...
I do not pretend that my work holds a candle to these most esteemed philosophers and psychologists -- at least not yet. Similarily, I do not pretend that my work would stand up to some of the 'rigid, technical standards' of most university philosophy programs.
I have a copy of a short paper on 'how to write an acceptable university philosophy essay and I have to confess that most of my essays probably break all the rules -- and yet I am not writing for a university here; I am writing for many different people from every walk of life who likes to read and learn -- and hopefully, at least partly, be entertained as well as educated; I wish not to lull you to sleep before you finish the first essay -- otherwise, why waste my time and energy, as well as yours. If you don't like what you are reading, you won't be around for long to waste your time and energy. No writer is going to please and/or entertain everbody but every writer has a responsibility to be as clear and passionate as possible relative to what one writes about. Otherwise, why write? To put yourself and others asleep? (It might save sleeping pills.)
Thus, it is partly the 'technical university anal-retentiveness and orthodoxy' that I am still partly rebelling against -- a projection of my ongoing love-hate relatioship with universities and the world of academia within them.
I want to 'jolt this crowd awake' -- to show that it is more than the world of academia that can write meaningful, important philosphical works...And that I don't have to 'jump through all of their academic hoops' to deliver a significant philosophical essay. Every good philosopher does not have to pass through a university -- indeed, this may be exactly what kills many a potential philosphical spirit.
Nor is philosphy about everything from the 'neck up' -- that is perhaps the worst stereotype about philosophy that our culture has.
In this regard, Hegel's Hotel is a call to 'philosophical relevance and everyday functional importance' -- not a manuscript that is aimed at learning more and more about less and less until you have to search for the relevance of the subject matter under a high-powered microscope. Meanwhile, the world around us is crashing and burning from philosophical stupidity, unbridled narcissism, righteousness, unilateralism, and a lack of integrity, compassion, and caring about our fellow man and the environment we live in.
My work is aimed at bridging the gap between 'the creative brilliance of academic philosophy at its best' and the common-sense pragmatism of every-day living philosophy. 'DGB(N)' stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging (Negotiations)' which is the essence of the process of my integrative work.
Now, obviously, it takes a lot more than sheer ambition to become good -- let alone great -- at anything. In philosophy, it takes a strong intellect, a strong knowledge of what you're writing about, preferrably lots of experience in living, a strong passion for your subject matter and your mission, and the perseverence and will-power of a bulldog to finish what you start. I have accomplished nothing yet except a growing assortment of hopefully interesting essays on different philosophical subject matters -- the dialectic, epistemology, politics, religion, romanticism, narcissism, natural health, and more...
Letting down all my pretenses and defenses about modesty, and speaking egotistically, by the time I am through 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology', I want it to be considered the best philosophical work of the early part of the 21st century.
Furthermore, I want it to be considered one of the most important integrative projects in the history of Western philosophy. Look at the table of contents again and tell me that Hegel's Hotel -- if it finishes what it says it will finish, and finishes it well -- that it won't deserve this type of accolade. All I need is the time and energy to finish it. Well, obviously, the talent, intellect, and integrating ability as well...
God, grant me the time, health, and energy to finish Hegel's Hotel. I am 53 years old now. I want to be finished Hegel's Hotel by my 60th birthday (ouch!) -- that would be March 3rd, 2015. Wow! Dare I think that I might be lucky enough to live that long. It might be a stretch.
What I am offering the reader which is different than most philosophical works in the past -- and comes with the invention of the 'blogsite' -- is the opportunity to experience Hegel's Hotel being built piece by piece, essay by essay. Reductionism and concrete particularity meets abstractionism and wholism over the course of time.
In this regard, I have created a 'New Essays' blogsite to accomodate all my new essays and allow those readers who want to follow the evolution of my work -- the building of Hegel's Hotel -- the opportunity to do so. (Google...DGB Philosophy, New Essays). My new aphorisms and self-awarenesses section can be found in the blogsite of the same name (i.e., this blogsite here).
After a certain period of time, all my new essays will be classified and filed into the particular section of Hegel's Hotel that they seem to most fit -- my epistemology essays in the epistemology section, my religious essays in the religious section...and so on. I expect that Hegel's Hotel -- and the essays in it -- will be constantly revised as re-classified under different section names until the work as a whole is finally finished.
That's the gameplan -- and having bared my raw ambition and egotism -- it remains for me simply to deliver the goods, deliver the promises as set out here. In this regard, I am no different than any of the potential presidential candidates as each of them -- Obama, Clinton, McCain -- lay out their presidential gameplan for the upcoming years, or on a lesser platform, any and every one of us who has ever applied for a job -- and, if everything goes right, put our 'best foot forward'.
Here's to substance, quality -- and delivering on 'big promises'.
-- dgb, April 8th, 2008, modified May 31st, 2008, June 1st, 2008.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Part 5: On The 'First' and 'Third' Floors of The DGB Model of The Human Psyche: Power Relations and Bi-Sexuality in the Personality
'Topologically' (or structurally) speaking -- and let us not forget that this is a 'conceptual-metaphysical' model that we are talking about here, not an empirically verifiable model like the model of a heart or liver or some other 'physical organ' --the first and third floors of the DGB model of the psyche are about as close to the Eric Berne 'structural-analysis' model as you are going to get. The 'four corner ego-states' are virtually identical -- only named a little differently: in Berne's model, they are called: 'The Nurturing Parent', 'The Controlling Parent', 'The Adaptive Child' and 'The Rebellious Child'; in my DGB model they are called: 'The Nurturing (Supportive, Encouraging) Topdog', 'The Righteous (Rejecting) Topdog', 'The Approval-Seeking (Co-Operative, Supportive) Underdog', and 'The Righteous-Rebellious Underdog'.
Power-relations is the name of the game here between two or more of the various ego-states -- between authority and co-operation, authority and rebellion, nurturing and co-operation, nurturing and rebellion, and/or some other mixture of the above. This is either a good or a bad thing -- or both -- depending on the content and dynamics of the particular ego-states involved.
The personality -- man's psychology -- is creatively built just like the body -- man's biology. The human mind/psyche is creatively built to achieve -- or at least to continually strive for, idealistically speaking -- homeostatic (dialectic/democratic) balance.
Both man's body and his/her psychology is creatively -- homeostatically, dialectically,and democratically -- built in terms 'multi-bi-polarites'. This is the physical -- and the psychological-philosophical -- mechanism for achieving -- or at least moving towards -- homeostatic/dialectic/democratic balance.
Besides power-relations which we will get into shortly, there is also the issue of sexuality. Freud started to get into this issue -- in particular, the issue of 'bi-sexuality in the personality' and then backed away. I will peruse through the Freud/Fliess letters and get back to you on what happened with Freud when I re-fresh my memory. Both before and after Freud, however, one can argue that others have contributed to the idea of -bi-sexuality in the personality from Plato and Chinese philosophy to today's present-day scientific knowledge that both sexes have both sexual hormones -- testosterone and estrogen -- at work in the body in different proportions depending both on the particular sex of the person and also the individual person.
The Chinese have worked with the 'yin' (femininity) and 'yang' (masculinity) concepts for thousands of years -- in biology and medicine, and in philosophy spilling over into psychology.
Let's go back to an example in biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine that is near and dear to my hear -- mainly because whether I am right or wrong will probably go a long way towards determining how long I have to live on this earth. Now I am not a doctor nor do I have anything close to a PHD in biology, physics, chemistry, and/or biochemistry -- so there is a very big 'caveat emptor' here -- I am speaking as an individual and philosopher here with a right to my own opinion; not as any type of 'medical expert' giving any kind of 'expert advice' to anyone who reads this. I believe that when it comes our own physical well-being, we are all responsible for ourselves and where and when we choose to get our 'expert advice' from. Again, I am only expressing an individual -- and a philosophical -- opinion here.
Call this 'fairytale biology and medicine' if you wish but the principle of 'homesotatstic balance' applies to both Western and Eastern medicine, and so too doe Hippocrites First Oath: 'First, do the patient no harm.' And the principle of 'yin' and 'yang' can be applied to the biology and biochemistry of the body -- with a certain amount of 'common sense' as long as we are very careful with our inferences, generalizations, and judgments, where they take us, and where they don't, and -- not to go 'haywire, overboard' with what we conclude. There is probably no such thing as too much medical education and advice but in the end we all have to be responsible for ourselves -- our choices, our actions, and which medical direction we choose to go.
The doctors conclusions on my liver were: 1. infection (of which hepatitis is probably the worst in the liver -- and this has been ruled out many times in my own praticular case); 2. a 'stone' blocking proper liver function; or 3. something more ominous (presumably like a 'tumor'). They gave me anti-biotics for a possible infection; two ERCPs looking for a stone blocking a liver duct or somewhere else on the passageway to my intestines; and 'pictures' (I think it was a couple of MRIs and maybe one set of Xrays). Next up was a 'liver biopsy' which was when I bailed...The operations were getting more and more invasive, I felt like i was improving on at least two occasions -- only to go 'crashing' into another relapse with another ERCP operation (this is where the particular surgeon goes looking for a stone). Of course, medical results pertaining to any type of operation are always open to debate and controversy as everyone throws in their two cents about what they think 'caused what'. I am no different and this is my interpretation, not the doctor's who would probably argue that the resultss were more favorable towards my improvement.
I saw myself going down the road of a 'Clint Eastwood' style of medicine -- first the biopsy and then God -- and the doctors -- only know what. It was not the road I wanted to go. I came to a possible 'fourth conclusion' -- that maybe I was simply dealing with an 'over-stressed, over-toxified' liver that need time, rest, relaxation -- and proper nutrition. No coffee, no alcohol, no debatable herbs, lots of fruits and veggies, soya milk, beet-veggie juice and chlorophyl from the health store, water, chicken noodle soup, very light on the meat -- and a focus on two herbs that all the 'natural health' literature said were good for the liver -- indeed, would help to 'regenerate' it and/or help to make it function better -- and that was 'milk thistle' and 'dandelion'.
From a 'yin'/'yang' perspective, the philosophy is simply this: if your liver is 'on fire', then common sense suggests that you may need to 'soothe it' with 'yin' (relaxing, soothing) foods such as: water, soya milk, chlorophyl, beet and tomato/veggie juice and the like; when your liver is 'comotose', not functioning properly -- or at all -- your yellow, jaundice, backed up with toxins that are going the wrong way in your body -- and ruling out any infection, stone blockage, and/or tumor -- then your liver may need some sort of 'yang-stimulant' like 'milk thistle', 'dandelion', 'ginger', a circulation enhancer that is not too aggressive, massage -- or something of this nature to bring the liver back into 'life and proper functioning again'. If the 'yellow' -- i.e., the 'jaundice' -- starts to 'retreat' in your body and your eyes, then you know that you are doing something right.
That was last August. For better or for worse, my body is normal color today, my eyes are white, not yellow, I'm back to working 50 to 57 hours a week as a dispatcher, my energy levels for the most part continue to improve -- not including a rather nasty flu virus that wouldn't let me go for the better part of a month or more but seems to be under control now...
To me that is the common sense of 'yin/yang' wholistic, homeostatic balance medicine -- of which I believe that Western medicine as a whole -- especially when it is 'narcissistically biased by money and trying to speed up therapy procedures' --does not always properly attend to. Western medicine -- when it is 'stuck' inside its 'Clint Eastwood...more guns, bombs, and ammunition is better' philosophy (kind of like Hillary Clinton when she went after Obama with 'everything including the kitchen sink, hoping that something would 'stick' -- and one or two things did).
It does no good if the infection, stone, and/or tumor is gone -- if the patient is 'gone' too.
The moral of this little story is that there is a need for both 'yin' (soothing, relaxing foods, herbs, and medicine, proper nutrition, etc...) and 'yang' medicine (stimulants and detoxification procedures...). Worded otherwise, there is a room for a delicate, homestatic balance in any type of medical and/or therapy process between 'constructionism' on the one hand (building new cells, re-generating life in the client/patient) and 'deconstructionism' on the other hand (clearing away toxins, pathogens, pollutants, etc.) Too much emphasis on the 'deconstructive' aspect of any type of medical and/or therapy procedure -- what I am calling the 'Clint Eastwood' approach to medicine -- and you may have a 'dead patient' on your hands because the delicate homeostatic balance between yin and yang, constructionism and deconstructionism, has been lost -- all 'deconstructionism' will eventually lead to a completely 'deconstructed patient' -- i.e., a dead one.
That's biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine. Now, let's come back to personality theory where the same rule of thumb applies. Conceptually, metaphysically, and topographically speaking, we have a 'yin' and a 'yang' topdog (the nurturing, supportive topdog -- the 'yin topdog' vs. the righteous, rejecting topdog -- the 'yang topdog' on the third floor of the personality -- both of which are basically 'introjected parental' ego-states (sterotypically speaking here, the 'yin' of the mother vs. the 'yang' of the father although everything can be completely different depending on the particular case. And we have the same on the first floor of the personality in terms of the 'yin' of the 'approval-seeking, co-operative underdog' vs. the 'yang' of the 'righteous, rebellious, rejecting underdog' -- both of which involve the 'compensatory' measures of 'adaptive, childhood ego-states'.
And that is where I will leave you today...
dgb, May 24th, 2008.
Power-relations is the name of the game here between two or more of the various ego-states -- between authority and co-operation, authority and rebellion, nurturing and co-operation, nurturing and rebellion, and/or some other mixture of the above. This is either a good or a bad thing -- or both -- depending on the content and dynamics of the particular ego-states involved.
The personality -- man's psychology -- is creatively built just like the body -- man's biology. The human mind/psyche is creatively built to achieve -- or at least to continually strive for, idealistically speaking -- homeostatic (dialectic/democratic) balance.
Both man's body and his/her psychology is creatively -- homeostatically, dialectically,and democratically -- built in terms 'multi-bi-polarites'. This is the physical -- and the psychological-philosophical -- mechanism for achieving -- or at least moving towards -- homeostatic/dialectic/democratic balance.
Besides power-relations which we will get into shortly, there is also the issue of sexuality. Freud started to get into this issue -- in particular, the issue of 'bi-sexuality in the personality' and then backed away. I will peruse through the Freud/Fliess letters and get back to you on what happened with Freud when I re-fresh my memory. Both before and after Freud, however, one can argue that others have contributed to the idea of -bi-sexuality in the personality from Plato and Chinese philosophy to today's present-day scientific knowledge that both sexes have both sexual hormones -- testosterone and estrogen -- at work in the body in different proportions depending both on the particular sex of the person and also the individual person.
The Chinese have worked with the 'yin' (femininity) and 'yang' (masculinity) concepts for thousands of years -- in biology and medicine, and in philosophy spilling over into psychology.
Let's go back to an example in biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine that is near and dear to my hear -- mainly because whether I am right or wrong will probably go a long way towards determining how long I have to live on this earth. Now I am not a doctor nor do I have anything close to a PHD in biology, physics, chemistry, and/or biochemistry -- so there is a very big 'caveat emptor' here -- I am speaking as an individual and philosopher here with a right to my own opinion; not as any type of 'medical expert' giving any kind of 'expert advice' to anyone who reads this. I believe that when it comes our own physical well-being, we are all responsible for ourselves and where and when we choose to get our 'expert advice' from. Again, I am only expressing an individual -- and a philosophical -- opinion here.
Call this 'fairytale biology and medicine' if you wish but the principle of 'homesotatstic balance' applies to both Western and Eastern medicine, and so too doe Hippocrites First Oath: 'First, do the patient no harm.' And the principle of 'yin' and 'yang' can be applied to the biology and biochemistry of the body -- with a certain amount of 'common sense' as long as we are very careful with our inferences, generalizations, and judgments, where they take us, and where they don't, and -- not to go 'haywire, overboard' with what we conclude. There is probably no such thing as too much medical education and advice but in the end we all have to be responsible for ourselves -- our choices, our actions, and which medical direction we choose to go.
The doctors conclusions on my liver were: 1. infection (of which hepatitis is probably the worst in the liver -- and this has been ruled out many times in my own praticular case); 2. a 'stone' blocking proper liver function; or 3. something more ominous (presumably like a 'tumor'). They gave me anti-biotics for a possible infection; two ERCPs looking for a stone blocking a liver duct or somewhere else on the passageway to my intestines; and 'pictures' (I think it was a couple of MRIs and maybe one set of Xrays). Next up was a 'liver biopsy' which was when I bailed...The operations were getting more and more invasive, I felt like i was improving on at least two occasions -- only to go 'crashing' into another relapse with another ERCP operation (this is where the particular surgeon goes looking for a stone). Of course, medical results pertaining to any type of operation are always open to debate and controversy as everyone throws in their two cents about what they think 'caused what'. I am no different and this is my interpretation, not the doctor's who would probably argue that the resultss were more favorable towards my improvement.
I saw myself going down the road of a 'Clint Eastwood' style of medicine -- first the biopsy and then God -- and the doctors -- only know what. It was not the road I wanted to go. I came to a possible 'fourth conclusion' -- that maybe I was simply dealing with an 'over-stressed, over-toxified' liver that need time, rest, relaxation -- and proper nutrition. No coffee, no alcohol, no debatable herbs, lots of fruits and veggies, soya milk, beet-veggie juice and chlorophyl from the health store, water, chicken noodle soup, very light on the meat -- and a focus on two herbs that all the 'natural health' literature said were good for the liver -- indeed, would help to 'regenerate' it and/or help to make it function better -- and that was 'milk thistle' and 'dandelion'.
From a 'yin'/'yang' perspective, the philosophy is simply this: if your liver is 'on fire', then common sense suggests that you may need to 'soothe it' with 'yin' (relaxing, soothing) foods such as: water, soya milk, chlorophyl, beet and tomato/veggie juice and the like; when your liver is 'comotose', not functioning properly -- or at all -- your yellow, jaundice, backed up with toxins that are going the wrong way in your body -- and ruling out any infection, stone blockage, and/or tumor -- then your liver may need some sort of 'yang-stimulant' like 'milk thistle', 'dandelion', 'ginger', a circulation enhancer that is not too aggressive, massage -- or something of this nature to bring the liver back into 'life and proper functioning again'. If the 'yellow' -- i.e., the 'jaundice' -- starts to 'retreat' in your body and your eyes, then you know that you are doing something right.
That was last August. For better or for worse, my body is normal color today, my eyes are white, not yellow, I'm back to working 50 to 57 hours a week as a dispatcher, my energy levels for the most part continue to improve -- not including a rather nasty flu virus that wouldn't let me go for the better part of a month or more but seems to be under control now...
To me that is the common sense of 'yin/yang' wholistic, homeostatic balance medicine -- of which I believe that Western medicine as a whole -- especially when it is 'narcissistically biased by money and trying to speed up therapy procedures' --does not always properly attend to. Western medicine -- when it is 'stuck' inside its 'Clint Eastwood...more guns, bombs, and ammunition is better' philosophy (kind of like Hillary Clinton when she went after Obama with 'everything including the kitchen sink, hoping that something would 'stick' -- and one or two things did).
It does no good if the infection, stone, and/or tumor is gone -- if the patient is 'gone' too.
The moral of this little story is that there is a need for both 'yin' (soothing, relaxing foods, herbs, and medicine, proper nutrition, etc...) and 'yang' medicine (stimulants and detoxification procedures...). Worded otherwise, there is a room for a delicate, homestatic balance in any type of medical and/or therapy process between 'constructionism' on the one hand (building new cells, re-generating life in the client/patient) and 'deconstructionism' on the other hand (clearing away toxins, pathogens, pollutants, etc.) Too much emphasis on the 'deconstructive' aspect of any type of medical and/or therapy procedure -- what I am calling the 'Clint Eastwood' approach to medicine -- and you may have a 'dead patient' on your hands because the delicate homeostatic balance between yin and yang, constructionism and deconstructionism, has been lost -- all 'deconstructionism' will eventually lead to a completely 'deconstructed patient' -- i.e., a dead one.
That's biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine. Now, let's come back to personality theory where the same rule of thumb applies. Conceptually, metaphysically, and topographically speaking, we have a 'yin' and a 'yang' topdog (the nurturing, supportive topdog -- the 'yin topdog' vs. the righteous, rejecting topdog -- the 'yang topdog' on the third floor of the personality -- both of which are basically 'introjected parental' ego-states (sterotypically speaking here, the 'yin' of the mother vs. the 'yang' of the father although everything can be completely different depending on the particular case. And we have the same on the first floor of the personality in terms of the 'yin' of the 'approval-seeking, co-operative underdog' vs. the 'yang' of the 'righteous, rebellious, rejecting underdog' -- both of which involve the 'compensatory' measures of 'adaptive, childhood ego-states'.
And that is where I will leave you today...
dgb, May 24th, 2008.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 4: On The Usage of The Terms 'Unconscious', 'Subconscious', 'Ego-State', and 'Ego-Compartment'
In DGB Philosophy-Psychology, we will use the term 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' interchangeably; indeed, in my mind, the 'subconscious' is probably the preferable term because the usage of the term 'unconscious' brings with it a host of problems such as 'the avoidance of self-responsibility' relative to one's behavior and the problem of 'who has the executive right to say what is unconscious and what is not'? Anybody can interpret anything and say that it is 'unconscious'; this terminology is a license for any school of psychology -- of which Psychoanalysis has probably been the worst perpetrator and offender -- to make a totally unproveable 'metaphysical statement' -- or 'diagnosis' -- and to arrogantly think that they lie 'beyond the burden of proof' relative to having to empirically and logically defend their metaphysical statement -- or diagnosis. If wrong -- but accepted as being right -- this type of situation can have horrific consequences in both the clinical psychology/psychotherapy world -- and if it gets this far -- the legal world. How about the possibility of a father being blackballed, charged and/or convicted of a 'childhood sexual assault' that he did not commit. Or the opposite type of 'diagnostic error' -- a father being clinically and/or legally 'dismissed' of a 'real childhood sexual assault' based on the fact that the psychotherapeutic client's 'real memory' is psychoanalytically re-interpreted as the woman's 'distorted, wishful, narcissistic fantasy'.
This brings out the whole Psychoanalytic vs. Jeffrey Masson 'Seduction Theory' Controversy that created a big stir in the Psychoanalytic world -- and in the general public -- in the late 1970s and 1980s, I will be re-opening this controversy and presenting my opinions and clinical beliefs on it in a series of essays to follow at a later date.
I want to 'existentialize' Freud and Psychoanalysis meaning that no one gets away with not taking responsibility for his or her own behavior -- regardless of what is 'unconscious' and/or 'subconscious' and what is not.
Furthermore, the usage of the term 'subconscious' implies more that what may be 'unconsious or subconscious now' -- like for example, a particular 'un/sub-conscious belief and/or belief system' -- may have been, in fact, probably was, 'conscious at a previous date' such as when the person was 'learning/developing the belief/belief system' in the first place. Or alternatively, what may be 'un/subconscious now' may again become 'conscious at a future date' through a number of different and/or connected possibilities such as 'remembering', 'associating', 'introspecting', 'psychotherapy', 'new awarenesses'...etc.
Usually, the unconscious/subconscious is not referred to as being an 'ego-state' or an 'ego-compartment'. But my argument is that -- in Greek, I believe -- the word 'ego' means 'psyche' so if we are talking about the human psyche here, then why would the unconscious/subconscious not be viewed as a part of -- or an 'ego-compartment' of -- the human psyche? The answer is: there is no good answer except the 'classic, orthodox psychoanalytic tradition' of not viewing the 'unconscious' -- nor the 'id' -- nor the 'superego' -- as a part of the ego except perhaps from a historical/evolutionary perspective in which case -- and I will have to look for a Freudian reference here -- the 'ego' traditionally has been viewed as having been 'built' from the 'unconscious'. In contrast, DGB Philosophy-Psychology will view anything and everything connected with the workings of the human psyche as being a part of the 'ego' -- or stated differently -- an 'ego-compartment'.
dgb, May 18th, 2008.
This brings out the whole Psychoanalytic vs. Jeffrey Masson 'Seduction Theory' Controversy that created a big stir in the Psychoanalytic world -- and in the general public -- in the late 1970s and 1980s, I will be re-opening this controversy and presenting my opinions and clinical beliefs on it in a series of essays to follow at a later date.
I want to 'existentialize' Freud and Psychoanalysis meaning that no one gets away with not taking responsibility for his or her own behavior -- regardless of what is 'unconscious' and/or 'subconscious' and what is not.
Furthermore, the usage of the term 'subconscious' implies more that what may be 'unconsious or subconscious now' -- like for example, a particular 'un/sub-conscious belief and/or belief system' -- may have been, in fact, probably was, 'conscious at a previous date' such as when the person was 'learning/developing the belief/belief system' in the first place. Or alternatively, what may be 'un/subconscious now' may again become 'conscious at a future date' through a number of different and/or connected possibilities such as 'remembering', 'associating', 'introspecting', 'psychotherapy', 'new awarenesses'...etc.
Usually, the unconscious/subconscious is not referred to as being an 'ego-state' or an 'ego-compartment'. But my argument is that -- in Greek, I believe -- the word 'ego' means 'psyche' so if we are talking about the human psyche here, then why would the unconscious/subconscious not be viewed as a part of -- or an 'ego-compartment' of -- the human psyche? The answer is: there is no good answer except the 'classic, orthodox psychoanalytic tradition' of not viewing the 'unconscious' -- nor the 'id' -- nor the 'superego' -- as a part of the ego except perhaps from a historical/evolutionary perspective in which case -- and I will have to look for a Freudian reference here -- the 'ego' traditionally has been viewed as having been 'built' from the 'unconscious'. In contrast, DGB Philosophy-Psychology will view anything and everything connected with the workings of the human psyche as being a part of the 'ego' -- or stated differently -- an 'ego-compartment'.
dgb, May 18th, 2008.
Friday, May 16, 2008
The DGB Model of The Human Psyche -- Part 3: An Overview of The Different 'Ego-Compartments' In The Personality
I am writing from the lobby of the newly renovated Sharaton Hotel in Richmond Hill, Leslie and 7, this mornig. High definition tvs in the bedrooms and 5 internet computers in the lobby -- two very nice additions to staying over night at a nice hotel.
My last essay didn't take me where I expected -- the 'genetic unconscious' being the last 'ego-compartment' that I wanted to unfold, not the first. But this is not unusual for me in my writing so let us go with the flow and see where it takes us.
Two day ago I was worried about the model being 'too big and complicated', 'carrying too much excess baggage', pushing the 'analytic reading up the Richter scale and off the charts' while at the same time pushing 'the existential reading' down and off the charts at the other end.
Today I am not as worried about that. My model covers a lot more 'philosophical as well as psychological territory' -- about 2700 years of philosophical -- and before that even mythological -- history that I am bringing into play in Hegel's Hotel that most of the psychologists were not terribly worried about.
Berne's model used six different 'ego-states' in his terminology -- 'ego-compartments in my terminology. Berne's model talked about: 1. the 'nurturing parent' (ego-state); 2. the 'controlling parent' (ego-state); 3. the 'adult' (ego-state); 4. the 'adapted child' (ego-state'; 5. the 'natrual child' (ego-state); and 6. the 'rebellious child' (ego-state). According to Berne, every person 'moves around' form one of these ego-states to another depending on the context of the situation, and the particular inter-relational dynamics of the encounter -- or dialectic -- in progress.
My DGB model is an abbreviated synopsis of everything I am writing in Hegel's Hotel and at this point in time includes these 16 different ego-compartments -- or 'divisions of the ego'.
3rd Floor: 1. The Nurturing Topdog; 2. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Topdog; 3. The Righteous Topdog;
2nd floor: 4. The Creative-Constructive Ego; 5. The Deconsstructive Ego; 6. The Epistemological Ego; 7. The Enlightenment Ego; 8. The Romantic-Humanistic-Existential Ego; 9. The Economic Ego; 10. The Physical Fitness Ego; 11. The Conflict-Mediating/Executive-Existential Ego;
1st Floor: 12. The Righteous (Rebellious) Underdog; 13. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Underdog; 14. The Approval-Seeking/Co-operative Underdog;
Basement: 15. The Creative-Dynamic Unconcious; 16. The Structural Unsconscious (consisting of two parts): a) The Social Unconscious (and Transference-Lifestyle-Archetype Templates); and b) The Geenetic Unconscious (of which we have already talked about in the last essay).
That will do for today -- something for you to mull over and ponder on until we get down to more of the specifics of the 'the structural make-up, dynamics and interaction of these different ego-compartments and/or ego-states'.
dgb, May 16th, 2008.
My last essay didn't take me where I expected -- the 'genetic unconscious' being the last 'ego-compartment' that I wanted to unfold, not the first. But this is not unusual for me in my writing so let us go with the flow and see where it takes us.
Two day ago I was worried about the model being 'too big and complicated', 'carrying too much excess baggage', pushing the 'analytic reading up the Richter scale and off the charts' while at the same time pushing 'the existential reading' down and off the charts at the other end.
Today I am not as worried about that. My model covers a lot more 'philosophical as well as psychological territory' -- about 2700 years of philosophical -- and before that even mythological -- history that I am bringing into play in Hegel's Hotel that most of the psychologists were not terribly worried about.
Berne's model used six different 'ego-states' in his terminology -- 'ego-compartments in my terminology. Berne's model talked about: 1. the 'nurturing parent' (ego-state); 2. the 'controlling parent' (ego-state); 3. the 'adult' (ego-state); 4. the 'adapted child' (ego-state'; 5. the 'natrual child' (ego-state); and 6. the 'rebellious child' (ego-state). According to Berne, every person 'moves around' form one of these ego-states to another depending on the context of the situation, and the particular inter-relational dynamics of the encounter -- or dialectic -- in progress.
My DGB model is an abbreviated synopsis of everything I am writing in Hegel's Hotel and at this point in time includes these 16 different ego-compartments -- or 'divisions of the ego'.
3rd Floor: 1. The Nurturing Topdog; 2. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Topdog; 3. The Righteous Topdog;
2nd floor: 4. The Creative-Constructive Ego; 5. The Deconsstructive Ego; 6. The Epistemological Ego; 7. The Enlightenment Ego; 8. The Romantic-Humanistic-Existential Ego; 9. The Economic Ego; 10. The Physical Fitness Ego; 11. The Conflict-Mediating/Executive-Existential Ego;
1st Floor: 12. The Righteous (Rebellious) Underdog; 13. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Underdog; 14. The Approval-Seeking/Co-operative Underdog;
Basement: 15. The Creative-Dynamic Unconcious; 16. The Structural Unsconscious (consisting of two parts): a) The Social Unconscious (and Transference-Lifestyle-Archetype Templates); and b) The Geenetic Unconscious (of which we have already talked about in the last essay).
That will do for today -- something for you to mull over and ponder on until we get down to more of the specifics of the 'the structural make-up, dynamics and interaction of these different ego-compartments and/or ego-states'.
dgb, May 16th, 2008.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche -- Part 2: The Genetic Un(Sub)conscious
Everything here has got to be based on function. If this model is not functional -- or any part of it -- then throw it out. Function dictates everything. Did our Creator create a part of our body that does not have a function? Hardly! And so it has to be with this model.
The danger of creating a model with too many 'compartments' in it, is that is prone to create too much analysis. You know what they say about too much analysis -- it creates paralysis.
The best thing I learned at Gestalt Therapy was how to keep things -- 'existential'. Alive! Too much analysis turns life into death. Movement into stagnation. Excitement into boredom. Growth into entropy.
Through all of this 'model-building', we need to stay alive. It's like watching a professional basketball game -- or any sport or performance. The analyis is done in the dressing room, but the game still has to be played on the court or the field or the ice or the stage... There is a 'dialectical dance' going on here between 'analysis' and 'existentialism' as well as between 'wholism' and 'reductionism'. Again, we must keep things in balance. We must not lose track of the existentialism in the analysis; similarily, we must not lose track of the wholism in the reductionism. We need a 'ping pong game' back and forth. If there is an emphasis at all it is on keeping the existentialism -- the dialectic encounter -- alive, and similarily, the wholism. We must not get so caught up in 'part-function analysis' that we forget how everything is integrated into a sophisticated whole. This is the way with the body. And this is also the way with the mind.
As well as being a post-Hegelian philosopher, and a post-Nietzschean philosopher, and a post-Freudian philosopher, I am also a post-Gestalt philosopher. Although it has been about 17 years since I have been involved with The Gestalt Institute, and I am not authorized to speak for them, still I spent the greater part of 12 years, off and on, participating in various group workshops at The Gestalt Institute. And Fritz Perls was a very entertaining and educational writer. He had the same type of flare and 'existential gusto' as one of our common mentors -- Nietzsche. Anyone who has been touched by the work of either Nietzsche and/or Perls -- and/or The Gestalt Institute -- is not likely to forget it. Gestalt Therapy is very much a living extension of much of Nietzschean philosophy.
So as I start to unfold the following DGB model -- with all of its different 'ego-functions and compartments' -- using the Transactional Analysis model mainly as my starting-point -- it remains on my existential conscience that we not lose track of the 'dialectical pulse of life', the stuff that makes our existence important and meaningful more than anything I can say 'analytically'. Perls -- and Gestalt Therapy -- had/have an 'allergy to analysis' which I do not follow quite as 'anally-retentively' as they do -- but still, I have a healthy respect for their motto of 'Get out of your head and into your senses'...or paraphrased...live your life existentially -- and with dialectical aliveness -- not cognitively, and put people, including yourself -- asleep. Live your life totally in your head and you put yourself, and others, asleep. Know when it's time to get out of your head and into your senses...That's a very important part of the 'dialectic dance' of living...
.....................................................................................
It is two days later from when I wrote the paragraphs above. I needed a break to churn on what I was about to write. I was afraid. I was seriously wondering -- and questioning -- the model I was about to present. Was/is it good enough to make any kind of a serious impact on those people who are in the 'know' -- the psychologists, the psycho-theorists, the psychotherapists, the clinical psychologists out there -- who have spent many, many countless hours indulging in these types of issues, asking these types of questions, and delivering their own particular types of answers?
At the same time, I was/am trying to hold onto a different type of reading audience -- the psychology and/or philosophy student at whatever level of academia he or she has progressed to, as well as the 'lay intellect' and the 'self-teaching/taught student' who may be seriously entering this type of territory for the first or near to first time.
I say all this because one of main things that we will be talking about below as we delve into the realm of 'personality theory' is the different 'ego-states' in the personality -- 'ego-states' being a term that the post or neo-psychoanalyst, Eric Berne, made famous during the 1960s with books like 'Games People Play' and 'What Do You Say After You Say Hello'.
...................................................................................
Dr. Eric Berne, Psychiatrist and Creator of Transactional Analysis
Author of Games People Play
Dr. Eric Berne is the author of Games People Play, the groundbreaking book in which he introduces Games and Transactional Analysis to the world. According to Dr. Berne, games are ritualistic transactions or behavior patterns between individuals that can indicate hidden feelings or emotions. A runaway success, Games People Play spent more than two years on the New York Times bestseller list in the mid 1960s - longer than any non-fiction book over the preceding decade. Games People Play and Transactional Analysis have gone on to influence and inspire millions of people, including Thomas A. Harris, author of the book I'm OK - You're OK, and Muriel James, author of Born to Win.
Five million copies later and nearly forty years after it first debuted, Games People Play remains popular and continues to sell across the world. It has been translated into over 10 different languages, with millions of laypeople and trained psychotherapists employing Dr. Berne's techniques.
Dr. Eric Berne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games People Play
"An important book . . . a brilliant, amusing, and clear catalogue of the psychological theatricals that human beings play over and over again. The good Doctor has provided story lines that hacks will not exhaust in the next 10,000 years"
-Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in Life Magazine
"Original, disturbing, and delightful, a prime conversation piece... Many of these games are real-life horrors, played in dead earnest in public places, the parlor, bedroom, consulting room"
- The Chicago Tribune
"A fascinating book... These are not necessarily 'fun' games. In fact, most of them are hair-raisingly neurotic rituals in which tensions are discharged and satisfactions are gained, usually at the expense of others"
- Newsweek
ALSO! A 2004 essay in the New York Times on the impact of Games People Play, as well as an excerpt from a 1966 article in which Dr. Eric Berne plays games with Frank Sinatra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Berne with his trademark pipe Dr. Eric Berne (1910-1970) was a prominent psychiatrist and bestselling author. He grew up in Montreal, Canada, and received his MD degree from McGill University in 1935. He completed his psychiatry training in the United States and then entered the US Army as a psychiatrist.
After the war, Berne moved to Carmel, California. He continued his work as a psychiatrist, but felt increasingly frustrated with the psychoanalytic approaches at the time. As a result, he began developing a new and revolutionary theory, which he called Transactional Analysis. In 1958, he published the paper "Transactional Analysis: A New and Effective Method of Group Therapy" where he outlined this new approach.
After creating Transactional Analysis, Berne continued to develop and apply this new methodology. This led him to publish Games People Play and to found the International Transactional Analysis Association. He led an active life and continued his psychotherapist and writing duties up until his death in 1970. He left a remarkable legacy, including the creation of Transactional Analysis, Games People Play and 30+ other books and articles, and the founding of the International Transactional Analysis Association.
.................................................................................
Berne specifies 6 different ego-states on three different 'topological levels' similar to Freud's dividing the personality into three or more different topological levels -- depending on the year he was writing -- such as the 'id' basically in the 'basement' of the personality, the 'ego' on the 'main floor' of the personality, and the 'superego' on the 'top floor -- or 'penthouse' -- of the personality. With Berne it was the 'adapted child', the 'natural child', and the 'rebellious child' on the bottom floor of the personality, the 'adult' on the main floor of the personality, and the 'nurturing parent' and 'critical parent' on the top floor of the personality.
With an integration of different names influenced by, and borrowed partly from, Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, Transactional Analyis, Adlerian Psychology, and Gestalt Therapy -- DGB Personality Theory will continue this topological approach with a host of partly old and partly new 'ego-states' and/or 'ego-compartments' to talk about.
I have a high level of respect for the 'self-teaching and self-taught student' -- meaning that there are no universities and/or colleges involved -- because after 1991, all of my learning falls into this category. I learned what I read. I read what I dug up with my 'Sherlock Holmes' nose. And what I dug up with my Sherlock Holmes nose -- at just the time I needed it -- seemed to come from the deepest depths of my intuitive, genetic unconscious -- or 'soul'. Perhaps it is not surprising then, that one of the main features of my DGB model of the human psyche -- influenced mainly by Carl Jung's 'collective unconcious' and the 'creative projection' of my own psyche -- is the 'genetic unconscious', 'the genetic blueprint and/or template' -- or the 'genetic soul'. I wouldn't even cry foul if you and/or I said that it was 'our own personal, unique, genetic soul as created by God.'
When I was wandering the halls of The University of Waterloo back around 1978, preparing to write my honours Thesis in psychology, and I wandered into the University library, visiting the psychology section to see what I could find -- I stumbled upon a book by 'Alexander Bain' called 'The Emotions and The Will'. Was I looking at the work of a great, great, (great?) grandfather?
At this point in time, I do not think so because I think I read in an old Encyclopedia Brittanica that Alexander Bain had no kids. Still, he remains what I would call an 'archetypal mentor/figure' for me -- consciously, and/or unconsciously perhaps if there is some sort of a 'genetic connection'.
....................................................................................
From the internet...
Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier
by Robert M. Young
Synthesis of Associationism and Sensory-Motor Physiology
Alexander Bain was probably the first modern thinker whose primary concern was with psychology itself He has been credited with writing the first 'comprehensive treatise having psychology as its sole purpose'.[1] His two-volume systematic work, The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and The Emotions and the Will (1859), was the standard British text for almost half a century, until Stout's replaced it.[2] He also founded Mind (1876-), the first psychological journal in any country. His work requires close attention, because it is the meeting-point of experimental sensory-motor physiology and the association psychology. His influence on the conceptions of later workers was direct and extremely important. Ferrier studied classics and philosophy under Bain at Aberdeen (first class honours, 1863). When he and Jackson acknowledge their intellectual debts or make references to psychology, the names most often mentioned are Bain and Spencer-the figures whose work was the culmination of the association psychology in its traditional form. Ferrier and Jackson strongly influenced each other, and together they
1 Murphy, 1949, p. 107.
2 Boring, 1950, p. 235.
.....................................................................................
Within my concept of the genetic unconscious, I include Freud's concept of the 'id' -- paraphrasing Freud, 'the bridge' between human biology-physiology-bio-chemistry', biological-hormonal impulses like 'sex impulses (in Freud's more genetic-deterministic terminology -- 'sex instincts') -- and finally, the human psyche. More on this at a later date.
And within my concept of the genetic unconscious, I include Jung's concept of the 'collective unconscious' or what I would call the 'mythological-symbolic unconscious' -- the stuff that 'night dreams' and 'psychotic hallucinations' are made of. Freud once wrote -- and I paraphrase: The psychotic dreams while he is awake. (My apologies but I will have to dig for the source. The best I can come up with so far is: Freud, 1940, An Outline of Psychoanalysis. I will see if I can find it upstairs in my library. How about this?: 'A dream, then, is a psychosis, with all the absurdities, delusions and illusions of a psychosis.' Sigmund Freud, 1940, pg. 49.)
'Topologically', I would put the genetic unconscious in the 'basement' -- or the deepest depths -- of the human psyche. Or alternatively, call it the deepest basement of 'Hegel's Hotel'.
Dare I say that we have 15 more 'ego-compartments' to go -- classifying the genetic unconscious as an 'unconscious ego-compartment' -- something that Freud definitely would not have done. For Freud, neither the 'id' nor the 'super-ego' were to be construed as a part of the 'ego' -- except perhaps in an earlier, evolutionary personal and/or cultural stage of development. Nor did Freud ever -- to my knowledge talke about 'ego-states' and/or 'ego-compartments' -- a type of terminology that would surface years later under the influence of Object Relations -- and then more definitively under the influence of Berne's 'Transactional Analysis'.
It is to Transactional Analysis that our next discussion will return to as a starting point. And upon checking my research records -- rather than my faulty memory -- the first thing I noted was that the Tranactional Analysis model of the human psyche is a 'six-ego-compartment or ego-state' model; not a five compartment model as I first stated in this article a couple of days ago. I was digging some 25 years back into my memory -- back I would say to about 1983 when I last studied Eric Berne -- so I guess it is not too surprising that my memory was not foolproof. We will fix this up in the next essay.
-- dgb, May 14th, 2008; modified and updated May 18th, 2008.
The danger of creating a model with too many 'compartments' in it, is that is prone to create too much analysis. You know what they say about too much analysis -- it creates paralysis.
The best thing I learned at Gestalt Therapy was how to keep things -- 'existential'. Alive! Too much analysis turns life into death. Movement into stagnation. Excitement into boredom. Growth into entropy.
Through all of this 'model-building', we need to stay alive. It's like watching a professional basketball game -- or any sport or performance. The analyis is done in the dressing room, but the game still has to be played on the court or the field or the ice or the stage... There is a 'dialectical dance' going on here between 'analysis' and 'existentialism' as well as between 'wholism' and 'reductionism'. Again, we must keep things in balance. We must not lose track of the existentialism in the analysis; similarily, we must not lose track of the wholism in the reductionism. We need a 'ping pong game' back and forth. If there is an emphasis at all it is on keeping the existentialism -- the dialectic encounter -- alive, and similarily, the wholism. We must not get so caught up in 'part-function analysis' that we forget how everything is integrated into a sophisticated whole. This is the way with the body. And this is also the way with the mind.
As well as being a post-Hegelian philosopher, and a post-Nietzschean philosopher, and a post-Freudian philosopher, I am also a post-Gestalt philosopher. Although it has been about 17 years since I have been involved with The Gestalt Institute, and I am not authorized to speak for them, still I spent the greater part of 12 years, off and on, participating in various group workshops at The Gestalt Institute. And Fritz Perls was a very entertaining and educational writer. He had the same type of flare and 'existential gusto' as one of our common mentors -- Nietzsche. Anyone who has been touched by the work of either Nietzsche and/or Perls -- and/or The Gestalt Institute -- is not likely to forget it. Gestalt Therapy is very much a living extension of much of Nietzschean philosophy.
So as I start to unfold the following DGB model -- with all of its different 'ego-functions and compartments' -- using the Transactional Analysis model mainly as my starting-point -- it remains on my existential conscience that we not lose track of the 'dialectical pulse of life', the stuff that makes our existence important and meaningful more than anything I can say 'analytically'. Perls -- and Gestalt Therapy -- had/have an 'allergy to analysis' which I do not follow quite as 'anally-retentively' as they do -- but still, I have a healthy respect for their motto of 'Get out of your head and into your senses'...or paraphrased...live your life existentially -- and with dialectical aliveness -- not cognitively, and put people, including yourself -- asleep. Live your life totally in your head and you put yourself, and others, asleep. Know when it's time to get out of your head and into your senses...That's a very important part of the 'dialectic dance' of living...
.....................................................................................
It is two days later from when I wrote the paragraphs above. I needed a break to churn on what I was about to write. I was afraid. I was seriously wondering -- and questioning -- the model I was about to present. Was/is it good enough to make any kind of a serious impact on those people who are in the 'know' -- the psychologists, the psycho-theorists, the psychotherapists, the clinical psychologists out there -- who have spent many, many countless hours indulging in these types of issues, asking these types of questions, and delivering their own particular types of answers?
At the same time, I was/am trying to hold onto a different type of reading audience -- the psychology and/or philosophy student at whatever level of academia he or she has progressed to, as well as the 'lay intellect' and the 'self-teaching/taught student' who may be seriously entering this type of territory for the first or near to first time.
I say all this because one of main things that we will be talking about below as we delve into the realm of 'personality theory' is the different 'ego-states' in the personality -- 'ego-states' being a term that the post or neo-psychoanalyst, Eric Berne, made famous during the 1960s with books like 'Games People Play' and 'What Do You Say After You Say Hello'.
...................................................................................
Dr. Eric Berne, Psychiatrist and Creator of Transactional Analysis
Author of Games People Play
Dr. Eric Berne is the author of Games People Play, the groundbreaking book in which he introduces Games and Transactional Analysis to the world. According to Dr. Berne, games are ritualistic transactions or behavior patterns between individuals that can indicate hidden feelings or emotions. A runaway success, Games People Play spent more than two years on the New York Times bestseller list in the mid 1960s - longer than any non-fiction book over the preceding decade. Games People Play and Transactional Analysis have gone on to influence and inspire millions of people, including Thomas A. Harris, author of the book I'm OK - You're OK, and Muriel James, author of Born to Win.
Five million copies later and nearly forty years after it first debuted, Games People Play remains popular and continues to sell across the world. It has been translated into over 10 different languages, with millions of laypeople and trained psychotherapists employing Dr. Berne's techniques.
Dr. Eric Berne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games People Play
"An important book . . . a brilliant, amusing, and clear catalogue of the psychological theatricals that human beings play over and over again. The good Doctor has provided story lines that hacks will not exhaust in the next 10,000 years"
-Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in Life Magazine
"Original, disturbing, and delightful, a prime conversation piece... Many of these games are real-life horrors, played in dead earnest in public places, the parlor, bedroom, consulting room"
- The Chicago Tribune
"A fascinating book... These are not necessarily 'fun' games. In fact, most of them are hair-raisingly neurotic rituals in which tensions are discharged and satisfactions are gained, usually at the expense of others"
- Newsweek
ALSO! A 2004 essay in the New York Times on the impact of Games People Play, as well as an excerpt from a 1966 article in which Dr. Eric Berne plays games with Frank Sinatra.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Berne with his trademark pipe Dr. Eric Berne (1910-1970) was a prominent psychiatrist and bestselling author. He grew up in Montreal, Canada, and received his MD degree from McGill University in 1935. He completed his psychiatry training in the United States and then entered the US Army as a psychiatrist.
After the war, Berne moved to Carmel, California. He continued his work as a psychiatrist, but felt increasingly frustrated with the psychoanalytic approaches at the time. As a result, he began developing a new and revolutionary theory, which he called Transactional Analysis. In 1958, he published the paper "Transactional Analysis: A New and Effective Method of Group Therapy" where he outlined this new approach.
After creating Transactional Analysis, Berne continued to develop and apply this new methodology. This led him to publish Games People Play and to found the International Transactional Analysis Association. He led an active life and continued his psychotherapist and writing duties up until his death in 1970. He left a remarkable legacy, including the creation of Transactional Analysis, Games People Play and 30+ other books and articles, and the founding of the International Transactional Analysis Association.
.................................................................................
Berne specifies 6 different ego-states on three different 'topological levels' similar to Freud's dividing the personality into three or more different topological levels -- depending on the year he was writing -- such as the 'id' basically in the 'basement' of the personality, the 'ego' on the 'main floor' of the personality, and the 'superego' on the 'top floor -- or 'penthouse' -- of the personality. With Berne it was the 'adapted child', the 'natural child', and the 'rebellious child' on the bottom floor of the personality, the 'adult' on the main floor of the personality, and the 'nurturing parent' and 'critical parent' on the top floor of the personality.
With an integration of different names influenced by, and borrowed partly from, Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, Transactional Analyis, Adlerian Psychology, and Gestalt Therapy -- DGB Personality Theory will continue this topological approach with a host of partly old and partly new 'ego-states' and/or 'ego-compartments' to talk about.
I have a high level of respect for the 'self-teaching and self-taught student' -- meaning that there are no universities and/or colleges involved -- because after 1991, all of my learning falls into this category. I learned what I read. I read what I dug up with my 'Sherlock Holmes' nose. And what I dug up with my Sherlock Holmes nose -- at just the time I needed it -- seemed to come from the deepest depths of my intuitive, genetic unconscious -- or 'soul'. Perhaps it is not surprising then, that one of the main features of my DGB model of the human psyche -- influenced mainly by Carl Jung's 'collective unconcious' and the 'creative projection' of my own psyche -- is the 'genetic unconscious', 'the genetic blueprint and/or template' -- or the 'genetic soul'. I wouldn't even cry foul if you and/or I said that it was 'our own personal, unique, genetic soul as created by God.'
When I was wandering the halls of The University of Waterloo back around 1978, preparing to write my honours Thesis in psychology, and I wandered into the University library, visiting the psychology section to see what I could find -- I stumbled upon a book by 'Alexander Bain' called 'The Emotions and The Will'. Was I looking at the work of a great, great, (great?) grandfather?
At this point in time, I do not think so because I think I read in an old Encyclopedia Brittanica that Alexander Bain had no kids. Still, he remains what I would call an 'archetypal mentor/figure' for me -- consciously, and/or unconsciously perhaps if there is some sort of a 'genetic connection'.
....................................................................................
From the internet...
Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier
by Robert M. Young
Synthesis of Associationism and Sensory-Motor Physiology
Alexander Bain was probably the first modern thinker whose primary concern was with psychology itself He has been credited with writing the first 'comprehensive treatise having psychology as its sole purpose'.[1] His two-volume systematic work, The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and The Emotions and the Will (1859), was the standard British text for almost half a century, until Stout's replaced it.[2] He also founded Mind (1876-), the first psychological journal in any country. His work requires close attention, because it is the meeting-point of experimental sensory-motor physiology and the association psychology. His influence on the conceptions of later workers was direct and extremely important. Ferrier studied classics and philosophy under Bain at Aberdeen (first class honours, 1863). When he and Jackson acknowledge their intellectual debts or make references to psychology, the names most often mentioned are Bain and Spencer-the figures whose work was the culmination of the association psychology in its traditional form. Ferrier and Jackson strongly influenced each other, and together they
1 Murphy, 1949, p. 107.
2 Boring, 1950, p. 235.
.....................................................................................
Within my concept of the genetic unconscious, I include Freud's concept of the 'id' -- paraphrasing Freud, 'the bridge' between human biology-physiology-bio-chemistry', biological-hormonal impulses like 'sex impulses (in Freud's more genetic-deterministic terminology -- 'sex instincts') -- and finally, the human psyche. More on this at a later date.
And within my concept of the genetic unconscious, I include Jung's concept of the 'collective unconscious' or what I would call the 'mythological-symbolic unconscious' -- the stuff that 'night dreams' and 'psychotic hallucinations' are made of. Freud once wrote -- and I paraphrase: The psychotic dreams while he is awake. (My apologies but I will have to dig for the source. The best I can come up with so far is: Freud, 1940, An Outline of Psychoanalysis. I will see if I can find it upstairs in my library. How about this?: 'A dream, then, is a psychosis, with all the absurdities, delusions and illusions of a psychosis.' Sigmund Freud, 1940, pg. 49.)
'Topologically', I would put the genetic unconscious in the 'basement' -- or the deepest depths -- of the human psyche. Or alternatively, call it the deepest basement of 'Hegel's Hotel'.
Dare I say that we have 15 more 'ego-compartments' to go -- classifying the genetic unconscious as an 'unconscious ego-compartment' -- something that Freud definitely would not have done. For Freud, neither the 'id' nor the 'super-ego' were to be construed as a part of the 'ego' -- except perhaps in an earlier, evolutionary personal and/or cultural stage of development. Nor did Freud ever -- to my knowledge talke about 'ego-states' and/or 'ego-compartments' -- a type of terminology that would surface years later under the influence of Object Relations -- and then more definitively under the influence of Berne's 'Transactional Analysis'.
It is to Transactional Analysis that our next discussion will return to as a starting point. And upon checking my research records -- rather than my faulty memory -- the first thing I noted was that the Tranactional Analysis model of the human psyche is a 'six-ego-compartment or ego-state' model; not a five compartment model as I first stated in this article a couple of days ago. I was digging some 25 years back into my memory -- back I would say to about 1983 when I last studied Eric Berne -- so I guess it is not too surprising that my memory was not foolproof. We will fix this up in the next essay.
-- dgb, May 14th, 2008; modified and updated May 18th, 2008.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A DGB Model Of The Human Psyche: (Part 1)
Let's start with Freud. Freud had a very simple but functionally effective model of the human psyche -- for both therapist and common folk alike. It was a metaphysical model involving 3 compartments in the personality: 1. the superego; 2. the id; and 3. the ego. Basically, the division of responsibility and function in the personality worked like this: 1. the superego handles all social-ethical responsibilities. It functions as the 'ethical and social conscience' of the personality; 2. the id handles all the biological instincts in the personality -- both acceptable and non-acceptable , sensory, sexual and violent (although all three of these points are debatable as we shall soon see); 3. the ego handles all the 'reality-testing', 'epistemology', 'conflict-mediation', and 'executive action' functions in the personality. It is the 'conflict-negotiating, compromising bridge' between the id and the superego. The name 'DGB(N) Philosophy expresses the same idea -- 'Dialectical, Gap-Bridging Negotiations'. In other words, the ego in Freudian Psychology fulfills a 'Hegelian conflict-mediating function' -- specifically the evolutionary function of: a) thesis (superego), b) anti-thesis (id), and c) synthesis (ego)'. Again -- a simple and functionally effective metaphysical model.
However, boys will be boys -- they all want(ed) to make their own models and put their own 'personal stamp' on it. Is this a sexist comment? Perhaps -- or even probably -- today. 'The times they are a changin'. Anyways, Melanie Klein, a German Psychoanalyst got involved in the 'model-building competition' -- and she was a girl/woman; not a boy/man. Stereotype broken.
Alfred Adler couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's brand of conceptual narcissism (Psychoanalysis) so they split -- Adler creating the school of psychology now known as Adlerian or Individual Psychology;
Carl Jung couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's model of Psychoanalysis -- so they split too -- Jung went on to create his own school of psychology called 'Jungian Psychology'. Carl Jung was also partly influenced by Adler's thinking -- parts of which can be found in Jung's system, particularly the idea of 'compensation'. The idea of 'compensation is also important in my own brand of DGB Philosophy-Psychology.
Adler's effect on personality theory was substantial and partly paradoxical. In a field of 'dialectical' theorists, Adler was an exception -- he was a 'monistic' theorist: he believed in the 'unity' and 'wholism' of the personality in 'Spinozian fashion' or like the very ancient 'monistic philosophy' of the Greek philosopher Thales (water being the source of all things) vs. the 'dialectic philosophy' of Anaxamander and Heraclitus where they began to talk about 'opposites colliding' with each other (Anaxamander) or 'opposites needing to balance with each other' (Heraclitus).
I had a tough time wrestling with this conceptual problem in the early 1980s: in attending both The Gestalt Institute in Toronto and The Adlerian Institute of Ontario at the same time, I was struck with the paradoxical difference between the 'dialectical theory' that I was learning at The Gestalt Institute and the 'wholistic-unity' theory I was learning at The Adlerian Institute. How could they both be theorizing about the same human personality when the difference in this theoretical outlook was so -- remarkably different? 'Unity and Wholism in The Personality' (Adler) vs. Dialectical Polarity and Conflict in the Personality (Freud, Jung, Klein, Perls...) Why was Adlerian theory -- 'non-dialectical'?
Or was it? There was a 'hint' of a 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory that I was grasping a bit of back then when I was learning it in 1980-81, more so now. But it was explained in a different way. 'Lifestyle' was/is the central concept in Adlerian theory. All of an individual's unique personality according to Adler -- and I am paraphrasing what I remember learning -- revolves around the person's unique 'lifestyle (pattern)' which is similar to what I will be developing in my concept of a person's unique 'transference-lifestyle complex'. This is Freud and Adler integrated in typical DGB Post-Hegelian style.
What was the hint of a possible 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory? Adler postulated that every person had some unique form of an 'inferiority or insecurity feeling' which he or she 'compensated for' through his or her own unique process of 'superiority-striving' -- which was the essence of his/her own unique 'lifestyle pattern'. That is as far as Adler took it basically although there is obviously a lot more to Adlerian theory than I have just quickly summerized here. But I will 'extrapolate' on Adlerian theory a bit in DGB terminology and conceptuology.
This connects Adlerian Theory with Freud's pre-1900 'Traumacy Theory' and his post-1900 'Narcissistic Theory'.
A person invariably and inevitably experiences a number of similar and/or different types of 'narcissistic ego traumacies' in his early childhood -- some of a more subjectively psychologically significant nature than others, some of a unique, individual nature, and others of a more 'chronic, serial' nature. It is impossible to get through childhood without experiencing 'narcissistic ego traumacy' from the 'objectively small' to the 'objectively huge' to the 'subjectively small' to the 'subjectively huge'. Objective psychology and 'objective narcissistic ego traumacy' does not always meet 'subjective narcissistic traumacy'.
It is subjective narcissistic ego traumacy that counts and subjective narcissistic ego traumacy is in the eye of the beholder; specifically, the eye of the person who experiences, interprets, and evaluates the 'nature of the ego-traumacy' and often ends up carrying this narcissistic ego traumacy consciously and/or subconsciously -- together with his 'superiority compensations' for the rest of his or her life. So now we have a theoretical connection between: 1. 'narcissistic ego traumacy'; 2. 'inferiority feeling and/or feeling of insecurity'; 3. 'compensation' and/or 'compensatory action'; and 4. 'superiority-striving' (lifestyle pattern which generally consists of the compensatory action). DGB Psychology will call this whole state of affairs the person's 'transference-lifestyle complex'.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Back to the history of personality theory. There were other things happening in the history and evolution of personality theory that need to be accounted for, and integrated into our evolving DGB model of the human psyche.
Perls' Gestalt Model: Perls (or maybe it was Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman -- or maybe it was Fritz and Laura Perls) introduced -- and I am not sure when and under what circumstances these two concepts were introduced (I will have to research it) -- the 'bi-polar dialectical concepts' of 'topdog' and 'underdog'. This was similar to Freud's dialectical split between the superego and the ego -- but with a little difference: more of an articulation of a 'power struggle' in the personality, and kind of a hint of a possible Adlerian influence of the 'underdog' being connected to Adler's idea of the 'inferiority feeling'. The underdog has the inferiority feeling; whereas the 'topdog' has the 'superiority complex'. An important difference in the evolutionary direction of personality structure/theory was starting to happen here.
This difference was even more clearly articulated in Eric Berne's 'Transactional Analysis' model of the human psyche. From Classic Psychoanalysis to Object Relations to Transactional Analysis, the idea of different 'ego-states' was starting to catch on and become more and more popular. DGB Personality Theory has likewise moved in this direction -- with Transactional Analysis providing the main theoretical influcence.
In Transactional Analysis, the classic Freudian 'superego' was dialectically split in two, giving one of the dialectical splits a new 'job-function' (nurturing)-- and giving both a new name: 'The Nurturing Parent' (the new more 'maternal' Superego)vs. 'The Critical Parent' (the old paternal Superego). An interesting evolutionary development, indeed.
Berne argued basically that the developing child introjects the 'righteous, critical parent' (sexistly speaking -- the paternal father) and introjects the 'nurturing, encouraging, supportive parent (sexistly speaking -- the maternal mother) -- and splits the difference. (One detects the presence and the essence of the Chinese 'yin/yang' theory here.)
On the bottom part of this first 'multi-dialectical psychological model', Berne postulated another psychological split -- and two more 'ego-states' -- the 'approval-seeking child' vs. the 'rebellious child'. Thus, Transactional Analysis had become the first form of 'Multi-Dialectical-Analysis'. Bernes' '4 ego-state' model was topped off with one more additional ego-state sitting 'topologically' in the middle of the model and functioning mainly as the old Freudian (Hegelian) ego -- as an 'adult conflict-mediator'. He called this last ego-state 'The Adult'. Thus, Bernes worked very effectively in Transactional Analysis for a good number of years -- I'm not sure how popular it is now -- with a multi-dialectical, 5 ego-state (or ego-compartment) model of the personality. I liked it although I wasn't crazy about the popularized names for the different ego-states. Still -- I was influenced by, and continue to be influenced by, this model.
However, I wanted to introduce my Freudian-Adlerian influence into this model -- specifically, 1. narcissistic theory; and 2. transference-lifestyle complex theory.
Furthermore, I found Berne's work a little too 'cognitive' and 'analytic' for my liking; I preferred the 'existential anxiety-excitement' of Gestalt Therapy.
Finally -- and this has been a much more recent development of the last few years -- I wanted to add a Jungian 'mythological-archetype' influence to the model, and I wanted to add a few different 'philosophical ego-states' to the model. This would make the model much bigger -- in terms of number of 'ego-states-functions-compartments' -- than all of its predecessors, even the Bernes' Transactional Analysis model.
This brings us historically up-to-date -- and ready for Part 2.
-- dgb, May 11th, 2008.
However, boys will be boys -- they all want(ed) to make their own models and put their own 'personal stamp' on it. Is this a sexist comment? Perhaps -- or even probably -- today. 'The times they are a changin'. Anyways, Melanie Klein, a German Psychoanalyst got involved in the 'model-building competition' -- and she was a girl/woman; not a boy/man. Stereotype broken.
Alfred Adler couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's brand of conceptual narcissism (Psychoanalysis) so they split -- Adler creating the school of psychology now known as Adlerian or Individual Psychology;
Carl Jung couldn't fit his brand of 'conceptual narcissism' (model-building) with Freud's model of Psychoanalysis -- so they split too -- Jung went on to create his own school of psychology called 'Jungian Psychology'. Carl Jung was also partly influenced by Adler's thinking -- parts of which can be found in Jung's system, particularly the idea of 'compensation'. The idea of 'compensation is also important in my own brand of DGB Philosophy-Psychology.
Adler's effect on personality theory was substantial and partly paradoxical. In a field of 'dialectical' theorists, Adler was an exception -- he was a 'monistic' theorist: he believed in the 'unity' and 'wholism' of the personality in 'Spinozian fashion' or like the very ancient 'monistic philosophy' of the Greek philosopher Thales (water being the source of all things) vs. the 'dialectic philosophy' of Anaxamander and Heraclitus where they began to talk about 'opposites colliding' with each other (Anaxamander) or 'opposites needing to balance with each other' (Heraclitus).
I had a tough time wrestling with this conceptual problem in the early 1980s: in attending both The Gestalt Institute in Toronto and The Adlerian Institute of Ontario at the same time, I was struck with the paradoxical difference between the 'dialectical theory' that I was learning at The Gestalt Institute and the 'wholistic-unity' theory I was learning at The Adlerian Institute. How could they both be theorizing about the same human personality when the difference in this theoretical outlook was so -- remarkably different? 'Unity and Wholism in The Personality' (Adler) vs. Dialectical Polarity and Conflict in the Personality (Freud, Jung, Klein, Perls...) Why was Adlerian theory -- 'non-dialectical'?
Or was it? There was a 'hint' of a 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory that I was grasping a bit of back then when I was learning it in 1980-81, more so now. But it was explained in a different way. 'Lifestyle' was/is the central concept in Adlerian theory. All of an individual's unique personality according to Adler -- and I am paraphrasing what I remember learning -- revolves around the person's unique 'lifestyle (pattern)' which is similar to what I will be developing in my concept of a person's unique 'transference-lifestyle complex'. This is Freud and Adler integrated in typical DGB Post-Hegelian style.
What was the hint of a possible 'dialectical split' in Adlerian theory? Adler postulated that every person had some unique form of an 'inferiority or insecurity feeling' which he or she 'compensated for' through his or her own unique process of 'superiority-striving' -- which was the essence of his/her own unique 'lifestyle pattern'. That is as far as Adler took it basically although there is obviously a lot more to Adlerian theory than I have just quickly summerized here. But I will 'extrapolate' on Adlerian theory a bit in DGB terminology and conceptuology.
This connects Adlerian Theory with Freud's pre-1900 'Traumacy Theory' and his post-1900 'Narcissistic Theory'.
A person invariably and inevitably experiences a number of similar and/or different types of 'narcissistic ego traumacies' in his early childhood -- some of a more subjectively psychologically significant nature than others, some of a unique, individual nature, and others of a more 'chronic, serial' nature. It is impossible to get through childhood without experiencing 'narcissistic ego traumacy' from the 'objectively small' to the 'objectively huge' to the 'subjectively small' to the 'subjectively huge'. Objective psychology and 'objective narcissistic ego traumacy' does not always meet 'subjective narcissistic traumacy'.
It is subjective narcissistic ego traumacy that counts and subjective narcissistic ego traumacy is in the eye of the beholder; specifically, the eye of the person who experiences, interprets, and evaluates the 'nature of the ego-traumacy' and often ends up carrying this narcissistic ego traumacy consciously and/or subconsciously -- together with his 'superiority compensations' for the rest of his or her life. So now we have a theoretical connection between: 1. 'narcissistic ego traumacy'; 2. 'inferiority feeling and/or feeling of insecurity'; 3. 'compensation' and/or 'compensatory action'; and 4. 'superiority-striving' (lifestyle pattern which generally consists of the compensatory action). DGB Psychology will call this whole state of affairs the person's 'transference-lifestyle complex'.
However, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Back to the history of personality theory. There were other things happening in the history and evolution of personality theory that need to be accounted for, and integrated into our evolving DGB model of the human psyche.
Perls' Gestalt Model: Perls (or maybe it was Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman -- or maybe it was Fritz and Laura Perls) introduced -- and I am not sure when and under what circumstances these two concepts were introduced (I will have to research it) -- the 'bi-polar dialectical concepts' of 'topdog' and 'underdog'. This was similar to Freud's dialectical split between the superego and the ego -- but with a little difference: more of an articulation of a 'power struggle' in the personality, and kind of a hint of a possible Adlerian influence of the 'underdog' being connected to Adler's idea of the 'inferiority feeling'. The underdog has the inferiority feeling; whereas the 'topdog' has the 'superiority complex'. An important difference in the evolutionary direction of personality structure/theory was starting to happen here.
This difference was even more clearly articulated in Eric Berne's 'Transactional Analysis' model of the human psyche. From Classic Psychoanalysis to Object Relations to Transactional Analysis, the idea of different 'ego-states' was starting to catch on and become more and more popular. DGB Personality Theory has likewise moved in this direction -- with Transactional Analysis providing the main theoretical influcence.
In Transactional Analysis, the classic Freudian 'superego' was dialectically split in two, giving one of the dialectical splits a new 'job-function' (nurturing)-- and giving both a new name: 'The Nurturing Parent' (the new more 'maternal' Superego)vs. 'The Critical Parent' (the old paternal Superego). An interesting evolutionary development, indeed.
Berne argued basically that the developing child introjects the 'righteous, critical parent' (sexistly speaking -- the paternal father) and introjects the 'nurturing, encouraging, supportive parent (sexistly speaking -- the maternal mother) -- and splits the difference. (One detects the presence and the essence of the Chinese 'yin/yang' theory here.)
On the bottom part of this first 'multi-dialectical psychological model', Berne postulated another psychological split -- and two more 'ego-states' -- the 'approval-seeking child' vs. the 'rebellious child'. Thus, Transactional Analysis had become the first form of 'Multi-Dialectical-Analysis'. Bernes' '4 ego-state' model was topped off with one more additional ego-state sitting 'topologically' in the middle of the model and functioning mainly as the old Freudian (Hegelian) ego -- as an 'adult conflict-mediator'. He called this last ego-state 'The Adult'. Thus, Bernes worked very effectively in Transactional Analysis for a good number of years -- I'm not sure how popular it is now -- with a multi-dialectical, 5 ego-state (or ego-compartment) model of the personality. I liked it although I wasn't crazy about the popularized names for the different ego-states. Still -- I was influenced by, and continue to be influenced by, this model.
However, I wanted to introduce my Freudian-Adlerian influence into this model -- specifically, 1. narcissistic theory; and 2. transference-lifestyle complex theory.
Furthermore, I found Berne's work a little too 'cognitive' and 'analytic' for my liking; I preferred the 'existential anxiety-excitement' of Gestalt Therapy.
Finally -- and this has been a much more recent development of the last few years -- I wanted to add a Jungian 'mythological-archetype' influence to the model, and I wanted to add a few different 'philosophical ego-states' to the model. This would make the model much bigger -- in terms of number of 'ego-states-functions-compartments' -- than all of its predecessors, even the Bernes' Transactional Analysis model.
This brings us historically up-to-date -- and ready for Part 2.
-- dgb, May 11th, 2008.
Prelude To A DGB Integrative Model Of The Human Psyche (Part 2): Internalization and Externalization (Introjection and Projection)
In order to understand the co-relation between man's culture -- religion, art, mythology, philosophy, psychology, medicine, architecture, business, politics, law --and the nature and makeup of man's psyche, we have to understand the process of 'internalization' and 'externalization' which can be called alternatively 'introjection' (or 'identification') and 'projection'. These are primarily 'psychoanalytic concepts' although many if not most forms of psychotherapy today use them in similar fashion (Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy...)
I am not here to knit-pick over small technical differences in meaning. I am here to integrate concepts in a way that hopefully helps us to understand the relationship between man and his culture, and the evolution of man and his culture.
Quite simply put, we learn from our culture and we give back to our culture what we have learned either in an 'either/or' format (either we completely 'introject' what we have learned or we completely 'reject' it); or in a 'modified-integrative-assimilative' fashion. I heard a religious preacher on tv say that we either 'transmit' what we have learned or we 'transform' it. I like the distinction.
Either we can transmit what we have learned in its entirety -- for better or for worse -- or we can transform what we have learned in which case we have internally changed a part of what we have learned to make it something else -- which is particularly important when we have learned something 'toxic' and 'pathological' and 'detoxified' this to make it something that is much healthier for social consumption.
The religious preacher was talking about 'purifying toxic beliefs and forms of living' and 'transforming' these beliefs/behaviors into something that was not going to pass on these toxins to someone else. He gave the example of Jesus as the perfect 'role-model' for how this 'detoxification process' was done. I might mention 'Mother Teresa' and 'Martin Luther King' as two other role models who rose far above other people in their ability to deliver this 'detoxification process' -- and in so doing -- inspire hope and optimism where before there was only hopelessness and despair.
In terms of understanding the dynamics of man, everything is integrated -- history, politics, law, economics, business, philosophy, art, architecture, sports and enteratainment, masculinism and feminism...
From one you can come to understand them all, and from all you can come to understand one. Reductionism is connected to/integrated with wholism just as wholism is connected to/integrated with reductionism.
Understand mythology and you can get some understanding of man's psychology -- ancient mythology is like a 'soap opera' involving the externalization of the internal dynamics of man's psyche. If you understand the 'projective-externalization' process of a man's -- or woman's -- God', then this can give you a very good working indication of at least one of the man's/woman's 'internal archetype -- and transference -- figures'.
'Transference' -- in my opinion, Freud's most creative and powerful psychoanalytic concept -- we will delve into with considerable gusto at a different time. Unlock a person's transferences -- and 'transference complexes' -- and you unlock the the depths of a person's spiritual and/or sexual, poisoned and/or enlightened, soul. Obviously, transference is not a concept that we want to talk about lightly, casually, or carelessly. In the hands of the best psychotherapists, understanding 'the dynamics of the transference' can be like a 'magic wand'. Self-enlightenment -- and change -- can follow. Or not.
Most of us have to live with the dynamics of our own personal transferences complexes -- for better and/or for worse -- for the entirety of our life, with perhaps some greater or lesser modifications along the way. It is a short -- connected distance -- between our transference complexes, our archetypes and sterotypes, our narcissistic ego traumacies and their compensations, our obsessions, our addictions, and our serial behavior patterns. The more 'poisoned' a person's transference complexes are, the more 'poisonous' are likely to be his or her resulting 'serial behavior patterns'. I am talking about cases like the 'serial rapist and/or killer', the 'serial victim'...and so on. Another day. Let us move on.
The model that is about to follow -- the DGB integrative model of the human psyche -- is a mixture of: Psychanalysis Theory (Traumacy Theory, Narcissistic Theory, Ego Theory, Object Relations, Self-Theory), Jungian Theory, Transactional Analysis, Adlerian Theory, Gestalt Theory, the history of philosophy, and Greek Mythology...
Many will say the model is too big. There are too many different 'ego compartments' in it. Remember that 'ego compartments' are 'metaphysical constructs' that can be expanded or reduced, accepted or rejected, at a moment's notice. They are metaphysical constructs that are meant to have 'functional value'. If they don't have functional value for teaching and/or learning purposes, then trash them. They are not 'God-given epistemological truths'. They are not empirically verifiable. They are metaphysical constructs that are meant to have functional value. No value -- don't use. It's as simple as that. Too many psycho-theorists spend endless hours righteously arguing for or against where a particular 'ego-compartment boundary' should or should not be drawn. A waste of time! Again these boundaries are not like the boundaries of a 'liver' where someone can actually trace the boundary with a finger, a pen, or a knife. They are conceptual, metaphysical boundaries that are more or less completely arbitrary -- except for the factor of 'pragmatic, functional value and usage'. Throw them out if they are not useful -- and try again. Try another model that works better for what you are trying to accomplish. But don't get into the 'righteous either/or' argument of 'true or false', 'right or wrong'. True and false, right or wrong -- are for mathematics and spelling; not for metaphysical constructs and models.
I think we are ready. 'The Messiah is coming!' The DGB Integrative Model of the human psyche is coming! Hold onto your hats! Hide your children! We might be coming into something that is X-rated. Man -- in the deepest depths of his being -- is X-rated. Homer said that -- or he projected man's X-ratedness onto man's 'Gods'. Plato said that man had three energy sources: the mind, the heart, and the loins. St. Augustine said that man was X-rated -- or at least he admitted that he, himself was: 'God, make me chaste -- but not yet!' (Wait until I have no testosterone left! -- my editorial addition). Hobbes wrote that man was X-rated. (You need a heavy police force to contain him.) Schopenhauer wrote that all of life is X-rated -- and there is nothing that we can do about it except maybe learn Budhism or go see a good theatre play in order to release our pent up feelings.
Nietzsche said that man was X-rated -- and that was basically a 'good thing'. Man needed to be more in touch with his senses -- and do away with the 'Christian, herd mentality'. Man needed to strive to be a 'Superman' at whatever he was good at -- and wanted to be. (I hear you, Professor Nietzsche, I hear you. In 'Hegel's Hotel', I am striving to be a 'Superman'. Even though you hated Hegel, 'The Birth of Tragedy ('BT')' was one of your best works -- and it was extremely 'Hegelian'. Your 'BT' was the bridge between Hegel, Schopenhauer -- and Freud. BT -- perhaps more than anything Freud wrote -- marked 'The Birth of Psychoanalysis'. Man needed to 'integrate' his inner 'Apollo' with his inner 'Dionysus'. Only then could he achieve the proper balance that he needed to live his life with 'existential gusto'! Sounds like 'homeostasis'. Sounds like the beginning of the need for man's 'ego' to integrate his 'superego' (Apollo) with his 'id' (Dionysus). Where BT started, Freud -- and Jung -- took over.
And that too is where we will start.
dgb, May 11th, 2008.
I am not here to knit-pick over small technical differences in meaning. I am here to integrate concepts in a way that hopefully helps us to understand the relationship between man and his culture, and the evolution of man and his culture.
Quite simply put, we learn from our culture and we give back to our culture what we have learned either in an 'either/or' format (either we completely 'introject' what we have learned or we completely 'reject' it); or in a 'modified-integrative-assimilative' fashion. I heard a religious preacher on tv say that we either 'transmit' what we have learned or we 'transform' it. I like the distinction.
Either we can transmit what we have learned in its entirety -- for better or for worse -- or we can transform what we have learned in which case we have internally changed a part of what we have learned to make it something else -- which is particularly important when we have learned something 'toxic' and 'pathological' and 'detoxified' this to make it something that is much healthier for social consumption.
The religious preacher was talking about 'purifying toxic beliefs and forms of living' and 'transforming' these beliefs/behaviors into something that was not going to pass on these toxins to someone else. He gave the example of Jesus as the perfect 'role-model' for how this 'detoxification process' was done. I might mention 'Mother Teresa' and 'Martin Luther King' as two other role models who rose far above other people in their ability to deliver this 'detoxification process' -- and in so doing -- inspire hope and optimism where before there was only hopelessness and despair.
In terms of understanding the dynamics of man, everything is integrated -- history, politics, law, economics, business, philosophy, art, architecture, sports and enteratainment, masculinism and feminism...
From one you can come to understand them all, and from all you can come to understand one. Reductionism is connected to/integrated with wholism just as wholism is connected to/integrated with reductionism.
Understand mythology and you can get some understanding of man's psychology -- ancient mythology is like a 'soap opera' involving the externalization of the internal dynamics of man's psyche. If you understand the 'projective-externalization' process of a man's -- or woman's -- God', then this can give you a very good working indication of at least one of the man's/woman's 'internal archetype -- and transference -- figures'.
'Transference' -- in my opinion, Freud's most creative and powerful psychoanalytic concept -- we will delve into with considerable gusto at a different time. Unlock a person's transferences -- and 'transference complexes' -- and you unlock the the depths of a person's spiritual and/or sexual, poisoned and/or enlightened, soul. Obviously, transference is not a concept that we want to talk about lightly, casually, or carelessly. In the hands of the best psychotherapists, understanding 'the dynamics of the transference' can be like a 'magic wand'. Self-enlightenment -- and change -- can follow. Or not.
Most of us have to live with the dynamics of our own personal transferences complexes -- for better and/or for worse -- for the entirety of our life, with perhaps some greater or lesser modifications along the way. It is a short -- connected distance -- between our transference complexes, our archetypes and sterotypes, our narcissistic ego traumacies and their compensations, our obsessions, our addictions, and our serial behavior patterns. The more 'poisoned' a person's transference complexes are, the more 'poisonous' are likely to be his or her resulting 'serial behavior patterns'. I am talking about cases like the 'serial rapist and/or killer', the 'serial victim'...and so on. Another day. Let us move on.
The model that is about to follow -- the DGB integrative model of the human psyche -- is a mixture of: Psychanalysis Theory (Traumacy Theory, Narcissistic Theory, Ego Theory, Object Relations, Self-Theory), Jungian Theory, Transactional Analysis, Adlerian Theory, Gestalt Theory, the history of philosophy, and Greek Mythology...
Many will say the model is too big. There are too many different 'ego compartments' in it. Remember that 'ego compartments' are 'metaphysical constructs' that can be expanded or reduced, accepted or rejected, at a moment's notice. They are metaphysical constructs that are meant to have 'functional value'. If they don't have functional value for teaching and/or learning purposes, then trash them. They are not 'God-given epistemological truths'. They are not empirically verifiable. They are metaphysical constructs that are meant to have functional value. No value -- don't use. It's as simple as that. Too many psycho-theorists spend endless hours righteously arguing for or against where a particular 'ego-compartment boundary' should or should not be drawn. A waste of time! Again these boundaries are not like the boundaries of a 'liver' where someone can actually trace the boundary with a finger, a pen, or a knife. They are conceptual, metaphysical boundaries that are more or less completely arbitrary -- except for the factor of 'pragmatic, functional value and usage'. Throw them out if they are not useful -- and try again. Try another model that works better for what you are trying to accomplish. But don't get into the 'righteous either/or' argument of 'true or false', 'right or wrong'. True and false, right or wrong -- are for mathematics and spelling; not for metaphysical constructs and models.
I think we are ready. 'The Messiah is coming!' The DGB Integrative Model of the human psyche is coming! Hold onto your hats! Hide your children! We might be coming into something that is X-rated. Man -- in the deepest depths of his being -- is X-rated. Homer said that -- or he projected man's X-ratedness onto man's 'Gods'. Plato said that man had three energy sources: the mind, the heart, and the loins. St. Augustine said that man was X-rated -- or at least he admitted that he, himself was: 'God, make me chaste -- but not yet!' (Wait until I have no testosterone left! -- my editorial addition). Hobbes wrote that man was X-rated. (You need a heavy police force to contain him.) Schopenhauer wrote that all of life is X-rated -- and there is nothing that we can do about it except maybe learn Budhism or go see a good theatre play in order to release our pent up feelings.
Nietzsche said that man was X-rated -- and that was basically a 'good thing'. Man needed to be more in touch with his senses -- and do away with the 'Christian, herd mentality'. Man needed to strive to be a 'Superman' at whatever he was good at -- and wanted to be. (I hear you, Professor Nietzsche, I hear you. In 'Hegel's Hotel', I am striving to be a 'Superman'. Even though you hated Hegel, 'The Birth of Tragedy ('BT')' was one of your best works -- and it was extremely 'Hegelian'. Your 'BT' was the bridge between Hegel, Schopenhauer -- and Freud. BT -- perhaps more than anything Freud wrote -- marked 'The Birth of Psychoanalysis'. Man needed to 'integrate' his inner 'Apollo' with his inner 'Dionysus'. Only then could he achieve the proper balance that he needed to live his life with 'existential gusto'! Sounds like 'homeostasis'. Sounds like the beginning of the need for man's 'ego' to integrate his 'superego' (Apollo) with his 'id' (Dionysus). Where BT started, Freud -- and Jung -- took over.
And that too is where we will start.
dgb, May 11th, 2008.
Prelude To A DGB Integrative Model Of The Human Psyche (Part 1): Homeostasis and Multi-Dialectic, Bi-Polarity
This could be one of the most important essays that I write in Hegel's Hotel -- or at least the next series of essays. The next three or four essays are meant to encompass the 'core-essence' of Hegel's Hotel -- as we work towards a 'super-multi-dialectic-integrative' model of the human psyche.
Now one person's treasure can very easily be another person's trash. It is exactly what I want to do here that could easily infuriate a lot of 'psychology purists' -- the 'pitbull conceptual narcissisists', the 'anal-retentivists', the 'boundary protectors'...
What I wish to do is to is to take the essence of every school of psychology I have learned -- or partly learned -- over my some 20 years of studying -- or partly studying -- psychology (let us say 1972-1992). And put it in a big mixing machine (my integrative mind) and see what comes out...Before I do this I want to emphasize three points as an introduction to what is to follow.
1. It is only a model -- a metaphysical model. I don't view it as being 'epistemologically correct'. Epistemological correctness usually demands 'empirical validity' and this we cannot do when we are talking about mental processes inside the human mind -- or psyche. A surgeon can cut open my chest and visually view the 'existence' of my liver, how it is functioning, and how it is not functioning, what is healthy about it, and what is pathological about it.
We cannot do the same if I start talking about an 'ego-state' or a 'central mediating ego'. These -- if they exist at all -- are invisible to the naked eye. You couldn't even find an 'ego-state' with a microscope. Still you can 'infer' its existence by experiencing the behavior of many, many people -- the way a psychotherapist or clinical psychologist would do -- and seeing an assortment of similar ways in which different people behave and drawing some generalization-conclusions from these inferences. In court, they might call this 'circumstantial evidence' . The result is what might be called a 'metaphysical (above physics) construct'.
2. Metaphysical constructs involve the use of at least partly 'arbitrary boundaries' which can be expanded or reduced, or eliminated altogether -- at a moment's notice. Functional usefulness -- or pragmatism -- should be the main indicator of whether or not you have a useful metaphysical construct with good -- at least partly arbitrary -- conceptual boundaries. I say partly because partly because again these boundaries should be drawn up mainly on the principle of 'functionality'. Let's go back to the body as an example again -- and back to the liver again.
The liver has a whole host of different bodily functions to perform -- I couldn't come close to naming them all. Talk to a liver specialist and he could give you a much better educations on all of the different functions -- and dysfunctions of the liver. But for simple teaching purposes here, let us say that the liver has one main bodily function: 'detoxification'. Now the liver has physical empirical boundaries that could be traced with a pencil or a surgeon's knife; it is not made up of 'arbitrary, conceptual' boundaries -- like many a human concept is.
Livers are visible to the naked eye; concepts are invisible to the naked eye. But is there any of you out there who would disagree with me when I say that both 'livers' and 'concepts' -- 'exist'. They just exist in different ways. The first exists -- empirically; the second exists metaphysically.
However, having said this, science and courts of law tend to generally put more 'epistemological faith' into 'eye witness reports, and things or events that can be 'empirically validated' -- assuming they come from a credible witness -- than they do in 'metaphysical inferences, beliefs, and assumptions' that are not very solidly attached to eye witness reports and empirical validation. Epistemologically, scientifically, and legally speaking, physics is given more 'existential respect' than metaphysics. To extrapolate from a quote from Sartre -- 'Existence precedes essence' or 'Existence before essence' -- we can also say, epistemologically and scientifically speaking -- 'physics before metaphysics'.
Now what all are we including as 'metaphysics'? In DGB Philosopohy, an idea or concept is considered 'metaphysical' -- because it 'exists above phsics'. An idea cannot be seen with the naked eye -- nor a microsope nor a telescope. Thus, an idea -- from a DGB perspective -- is metaphysical.
Having said this, we can make a distinctions between 'extensional metaphysics' and 'intensional metaphysics'. Extensional metaphysics consist of ideas that can be empirically verified or validated -- such as a liver; 'intensional metaphysics' consist of ideas that cannot be empirically verified or validated -- such as 'God' or an 'ego-state' or a --'Rebellious-Deconstructive-Detoxification Ego'.
A deconstructive ego cannot be empirically verified or validated. However, its metaphysical existence can be argued for and supported on the basis of such things as: function, pragmatics, and logic. The 'boundaries' of a 'deconstructive ego' are not physical boundaries -- like a liver -- but rather, partly arbitrary, conceptual boundaries based partly on -- again, function, pragmatics, and logic.
What is the function of the liver? Detoxification of the body. What is the function of the deconstructive ego? Detoxification of the personality. Why would it not be perfectly logical for God and/or Nature to create man's personality, mind, and/or psyche -- metaphysically -- in the same image as He/She did man's body? Why would not 'The Wisdom of The Mind' be the same as 'The Wisdom of The Body' (W.B. Cannon, 1932.)?
Why would not the principle of 'homeostasis' or 'homeostatic balance' or 'dialectical balance' be the same ruling principle that governs the mind-psyche-personality just as much as it does the body? Freud (Psychoanalysis), Jung (Jungian Psychology), and Perls (Gestalt Therapy) all subscribed basically to the principle of homeostasis. So did Hegel even though Hegel was philosophizing about 125 years before Cannon created the term -- homeostasis.
Why would we not associate Hegel's 'dialectical logic' -- thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- with the principle of homeostasis? When you integrate one 'polar concept or polar phenomenon with another polar concept or polar phenomenon you get an integrative balance, a dialectical balance, and/or a homeostatic balance' -- ideally speaking at least.
Some concepts might not mix. Some phenomena might not mix. Some people might not mix. Ideally speaking, a man and a woman -- when they come together -- should create a homeostatic (dialectic) balance. Obviously, this is not going to happen with every man and woman, with every couple -- or with every couple over time due to the fact that many factors can sabotage a relationship that might have started out as a good homeostatic (dialectic) balance.
One can even dig much deeper into history -- into ancient Greece and ancient China to see that some of the earliest philosophers in recorded history (Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious? and/or the Han Philosophers -- 'yin'/'yang'...) were playing around with and/or seriously developing the idea of homeostasis, homeostatic balance, and/or dialectic balance. This is not a new idea in the history of medicine (too much blood-sugar vs. not enough blood-sugar, high blood pressure vs. low blood pressure, too acidic vs. too alkaline, too much water vs. not enough water, too much food vs. not enough food, too much iron vs. not enough iron...) or the history of psychology (too much 'superego' vs. too much 'id', too critical vs. too pampering...)or the history of philosophy (too idealistic vs. too empirical...too rational vs. too romantic...)or the history of politics (liberal/conservative; Republican/Democrat...) or the history of law (the prosecution vs. the defense...)
The principle of homeostasis -- or homeostatic/dialectic balance -- governs every aspect of man's body, man's psyche, man's culture -- and even the natural environment, the ebb and flow of life, and the principle of 'ecological balance'.
Why would we not assume -- logically speaking -- that man's mind was created metaphysically the same way his body was created physically. With the principle of homeostasis as its governing force.
Life is 'multi-bi-polar' -- and so too is both man's body and man's psyche.
Thus, this is the number one governing principle of DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
dgb, May 6th, 2008.
Now one person's treasure can very easily be another person's trash. It is exactly what I want to do here that could easily infuriate a lot of 'psychology purists' -- the 'pitbull conceptual narcissisists', the 'anal-retentivists', the 'boundary protectors'...
What I wish to do is to is to take the essence of every school of psychology I have learned -- or partly learned -- over my some 20 years of studying -- or partly studying -- psychology (let us say 1972-1992). And put it in a big mixing machine (my integrative mind) and see what comes out...Before I do this I want to emphasize three points as an introduction to what is to follow.
1. It is only a model -- a metaphysical model. I don't view it as being 'epistemologically correct'. Epistemological correctness usually demands 'empirical validity' and this we cannot do when we are talking about mental processes inside the human mind -- or psyche. A surgeon can cut open my chest and visually view the 'existence' of my liver, how it is functioning, and how it is not functioning, what is healthy about it, and what is pathological about it.
We cannot do the same if I start talking about an 'ego-state' or a 'central mediating ego'. These -- if they exist at all -- are invisible to the naked eye. You couldn't even find an 'ego-state' with a microscope. Still you can 'infer' its existence by experiencing the behavior of many, many people -- the way a psychotherapist or clinical psychologist would do -- and seeing an assortment of similar ways in which different people behave and drawing some generalization-conclusions from these inferences. In court, they might call this 'circumstantial evidence' . The result is what might be called a 'metaphysical (above physics) construct'.
2. Metaphysical constructs involve the use of at least partly 'arbitrary boundaries' which can be expanded or reduced, or eliminated altogether -- at a moment's notice. Functional usefulness -- or pragmatism -- should be the main indicator of whether or not you have a useful metaphysical construct with good -- at least partly arbitrary -- conceptual boundaries. I say partly because partly because again these boundaries should be drawn up mainly on the principle of 'functionality'. Let's go back to the body as an example again -- and back to the liver again.
The liver has a whole host of different bodily functions to perform -- I couldn't come close to naming them all. Talk to a liver specialist and he could give you a much better educations on all of the different functions -- and dysfunctions of the liver. But for simple teaching purposes here, let us say that the liver has one main bodily function: 'detoxification'. Now the liver has physical empirical boundaries that could be traced with a pencil or a surgeon's knife; it is not made up of 'arbitrary, conceptual' boundaries -- like many a human concept is.
Livers are visible to the naked eye; concepts are invisible to the naked eye. But is there any of you out there who would disagree with me when I say that both 'livers' and 'concepts' -- 'exist'. They just exist in different ways. The first exists -- empirically; the second exists metaphysically.
However, having said this, science and courts of law tend to generally put more 'epistemological faith' into 'eye witness reports, and things or events that can be 'empirically validated' -- assuming they come from a credible witness -- than they do in 'metaphysical inferences, beliefs, and assumptions' that are not very solidly attached to eye witness reports and empirical validation. Epistemologically, scientifically, and legally speaking, physics is given more 'existential respect' than metaphysics. To extrapolate from a quote from Sartre -- 'Existence precedes essence' or 'Existence before essence' -- we can also say, epistemologically and scientifically speaking -- 'physics before metaphysics'.
Now what all are we including as 'metaphysics'? In DGB Philosopohy, an idea or concept is considered 'metaphysical' -- because it 'exists above phsics'. An idea cannot be seen with the naked eye -- nor a microsope nor a telescope. Thus, an idea -- from a DGB perspective -- is metaphysical.
Having said this, we can make a distinctions between 'extensional metaphysics' and 'intensional metaphysics'. Extensional metaphysics consist of ideas that can be empirically verified or validated -- such as a liver; 'intensional metaphysics' consist of ideas that cannot be empirically verified or validated -- such as 'God' or an 'ego-state' or a --'Rebellious-Deconstructive-Detoxification Ego'.
A deconstructive ego cannot be empirically verified or validated. However, its metaphysical existence can be argued for and supported on the basis of such things as: function, pragmatics, and logic. The 'boundaries' of a 'deconstructive ego' are not physical boundaries -- like a liver -- but rather, partly arbitrary, conceptual boundaries based partly on -- again, function, pragmatics, and logic.
What is the function of the liver? Detoxification of the body. What is the function of the deconstructive ego? Detoxification of the personality. Why would it not be perfectly logical for God and/or Nature to create man's personality, mind, and/or psyche -- metaphysically -- in the same image as He/She did man's body? Why would not 'The Wisdom of The Mind' be the same as 'The Wisdom of The Body' (W.B. Cannon, 1932.)?
Why would not the principle of 'homeostasis' or 'homeostatic balance' or 'dialectical balance' be the same ruling principle that governs the mind-psyche-personality just as much as it does the body? Freud (Psychoanalysis), Jung (Jungian Psychology), and Perls (Gestalt Therapy) all subscribed basically to the principle of homeostasis. So did Hegel even though Hegel was philosophizing about 125 years before Cannon created the term -- homeostasis.
Why would we not associate Hegel's 'dialectical logic' -- thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- with the principle of homeostasis? When you integrate one 'polar concept or polar phenomenon with another polar concept or polar phenomenon you get an integrative balance, a dialectical balance, and/or a homeostatic balance' -- ideally speaking at least.
Some concepts might not mix. Some phenomena might not mix. Some people might not mix. Ideally speaking, a man and a woman -- when they come together -- should create a homeostatic (dialectic) balance. Obviously, this is not going to happen with every man and woman, with every couple -- or with every couple over time due to the fact that many factors can sabotage a relationship that might have started out as a good homeostatic (dialectic) balance.
One can even dig much deeper into history -- into ancient Greece and ancient China to see that some of the earliest philosophers in recorded history (Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious? and/or the Han Philosophers -- 'yin'/'yang'...) were playing around with and/or seriously developing the idea of homeostasis, homeostatic balance, and/or dialectic balance. This is not a new idea in the history of medicine (too much blood-sugar vs. not enough blood-sugar, high blood pressure vs. low blood pressure, too acidic vs. too alkaline, too much water vs. not enough water, too much food vs. not enough food, too much iron vs. not enough iron...) or the history of psychology (too much 'superego' vs. too much 'id', too critical vs. too pampering...)or the history of philosophy (too idealistic vs. too empirical...too rational vs. too romantic...)or the history of politics (liberal/conservative; Republican/Democrat...) or the history of law (the prosecution vs. the defense...)
The principle of homeostasis -- or homeostatic/dialectic balance -- governs every aspect of man's body, man's psyche, man's culture -- and even the natural environment, the ebb and flow of life, and the principle of 'ecological balance'.
Why would we not assume -- logically speaking -- that man's mind was created metaphysically the same way his body was created physically. With the principle of homeostasis as its governing force.
Life is 'multi-bi-polar' -- and so too is both man's body and man's psyche.
Thus, this is the number one governing principle of DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
dgb, May 6th, 2008.
Conceptual Narcissism vs. Conceptual Integrationism
Good day! My name is David Bain. For those of you who are not familiar with either me or my work here -- my essays are focused primarily within the integrative realm of philosophy-psychology. Knowledge-wise, I am supported by an Honours degree in psychology from many years back (1974-79), as well as a two year relationship with The Adlerian Institute of Ontario (1980-81) and an 'on again-off again' relationship with The Gestalt Istitute of Toronto (1979-1991) -- this combined with about 20 years of 'self-education' (reading and writing within the confines of my own personal library and/or the internet).
I am in the process of writing a very large integrative philosophy-psychology work consisting of a network of some 50 plus blogsites in various stages of development from almost finished to not started yet. The project is called 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology...'. Each 'floor' of Hegel's Hotel (blogsite) will have a varying number of essays on/in it -- ranging from about 10 to 30 essays. Using simple multiplication, that means I am shooting to finish about 1000 philosophical and psychological essays -- let us say by the time I reach 60 years old, touch wood, God willing. Each essay on each floor-blogsite will metaphorically be considered to make up a 'room' in Hegel's Hotel. Thus, I am shooting to finish 'construction' on a thousand rooms in Hegel's Hotel. (So far, I've probably completed between 100 and 150.)
Within the confines of these some 50 plus different blogsites or floors of Hegel's Hotel, I will be -- and/or have been -- writing on a wide assortment of different topics from introductions to dialectical philosophy to freedom vs. determinism to awareness and contact to narcissism to the study of Ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy to the study of epistemology, the study of humanistic-existentialism, the study of ethics, the study of business and economics, the study of politics, the study of law, the study of the Enlightenment, the study of science and medicine, the study of romanticism and the arts, the study of spirituality and religion, and the study of psychology.
Obviously, I don't have enough time in my life to go hugely in depth into each and everyone of these areas. However, within each realm, I will bring my unique, post-Hegelian, integrative approach to what I want to write about and connect each essay, each blogsite, to my overall thesis which is that 'integrative dialectical evolution' is a process that can be taught and applied to all areas of human culture, living, and activity in a way that is often if not usually superior to an 'adversarial form of righteous-either/or philosophy and lifestyle'. This may not seem like a profoundly new or provocative thesis but I think that if you have the patience and perseverence -- fueled hopefully by more of my good writing than bad -- you will see that I have some unique contributions to offer the study of philosophy and psychology. I hope -- indeed expect -- that there will be good reading and value for both introductory and advanced philosophy and psychology students and professionals alike.
There is a sense in which I could very easily be called a 'Gestalt philosopher'. For a period of 12 years -- from 1979 to 1991 with 'gaps of non-involvement' at different times, I was, at different times during this overall time period, very intensely and intimately tied up to what I was learning at the Gestalt Institute in Toronto. I had good contacts with a lot of friends I met there, and had a lot of respect for the teachings of Gestalt therarists Jorge Rosner, Joanne Greenham, Tony Key, and others.
However, there is a sense in which I am kind of like the Gestaltist 'prodigal son' if you will -- I left my involvement with them in 1991, and I haven't been back except I think for one open house, since. That is 16 years that I have not been involved with the Gestalt Institute in Toronto.
Now here I am writing a 'philosophical treatise and forum' called 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...'. The treatise and forum is being written entirely on the internet as I write, and consists of a network of 26 different but associated blogsites which I call 'different floors of Hegel's Hotel', each with around 10-25 essays per blogsite/floor.
Now, yes there is a heavy Gestalt influence in the work as a whole, and in each and every essay that I have written. However, there are many other influences as well: Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Adler, Korzybski, Hawakawa, Erich Fromm, Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand, Schopenhauer, Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Jefferson, Diderot, Montasquieu, Kant, Fichte, Locke, Spinoza, the Han Philosophers, Heraclitus, Anaxamander...
So this is not all about Gestalt Therapy applied to philosophy. And yet in a partial sense -- a good size partial sense -- it is. It is not entirely by accident that many of my ..philosophical influences are the same ones who influenced Perls and the evolution of Gestalt Therapy -- for example, Freud, Jung, Korzybski, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heraclitus...
It was through studying Gestalt Therapy that I first became seriously connected to Hegel's philosophical work -- and it was this connection, this bridge if you will, that led me backwards from the study of psychology into the study of philosophy. I largely left behind my study of psychology in the 1991, and have been studying philosophy -- through books and the internet -- from 1991 to 2007, still continuing.
There is a sense in which almost everything I have developed in this network of blogsites, in each essay, I learned either from watching or experiencing the 'hotseat' in Gestalt Therapy. But the hotseat was a therapeutic invention by Perls that combined the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis) with Nietzschean urgency and Kierkgaardian immediacy. The purpose of the hotseat and empt chair technique -- one chair with the therapeutic client in it, the other seat facing him, empty -- was to help a person 'to gain better contact with a person who wasn't present, or to gain better contact within the client's own personality between a dominant side and an opposing more suppressed and neglected side. Through this process, a person 'dialectically alienated' within him or herself could work hard in the hotseat with openess, honesty, and immediacy to become more 'dialectically integrated' through the therapeutic synthesis of opposing parts in his or her personality.
DGB Philosophy does may not generally include the raw immediacy of a hot seat but it does contain the process of 'dialectical opposition', 'dialectical contact', 'dialectical negotiation', and 'dialectical integration'.
In DGB Philosophy, we are stepping away from the dynamics of the human psche in the rawest immediacy of the hot seat and empty chair work. However, we are expanding this process to each and every part of human culture and activity -- and then we will come back and connect what we have learned from this philosophical adventure into such areas as narcissism, epistemology, ethics, business and economics, politics, law, science and medicine, spirituality and religion with the DGB perspective (model, theory) on the structure and dynamics of the human psyche.
What goes around comes around. What is projected (viewed as if it is a 'movie' out there) is introjected (identified with, internalized) and/or visa versa. The movie or 'psycho-drama' -- both external and internal -- is us.
How narcissistic can we get? The world -- and particularly man's culture both collectively and privately -- is very much a reflection of a man's character, and in both a good and a bad sense, at the same time, his or her personal narcissism.
Personal and collective narcissism very much dominates the human psyche. Which is not to say that there isn't an important place and a need for the balance and equillibrium of the opposite of human narcissism which includes such things as: altruism, generosity, caring, love, social sensitivity, empathy, helping one's friends and neighbours, caring about the state of the environment, and the like.
There is an important place for a good balance of both narcissism and altruism in both man's psyche, and in the projections of his or her psyche into his private and collective culture, including the structure and process of any human philosophy, psychology, politics, and the rest that he may invent.
But still, looking around us for the most part, one cannot help to think and feel that human narcissism dominates -- both in and beyond our Canadian and American culture.
I watch politicians fight with each other in parliament, treat each other disrespectfully, as each and everyone of them chases after a narcissistic, either/or, right or wrong, ideology -- as if theirs was the only 'right' ideology on the face of the earth. Sometimes the 'game' they seem to be playing, the 'show' they seem to be putting on, reminds me of something I might see on television wrestling. But if it is not all 'game' and 'show' and politicians actually believe that they are being 'righteously real', then someone needs to show these politicians how to better work with each other, not against each other.
The dialectic can be used righteously, manipulatively and maliciously --'narcissisticly' is the word I will generally use (see my essays on narcissism) -- or it can be used judiciously and integratively, utilizing a combination of reason, compassion, common sense, empathy, humanism, ethics, a balance of personal assertiveness (and in this regard narcissism in a good sense to the extent that it is kept in line by giving room for the rights and wishes of others) with social altruism.
The same goes for corporations vs. unions or non-union employees, natural health medicine vs. standard, orthodox Western medicine, sports owners vs. athletes taking into account the fans, indeed, any type of human conflict where people have a choice between acting reasonably with each other vs. going off ballistically with each other because they can't see past their own personal narcissism.
As for the issue of my 'classification' as a philosopher, and whether I can or should be called a 'Gestalt philosopher' -- someone who has learned from Gestalt Therapy and extrapolated on these lessons into the realm of philosophy, politics, medicine, religion, art, and the like -- well that is a dialect in its own right between me and members of The Gestalt Institute who I haven't really talked to since 1991. The prodigal son may one day return back to some of his main roots and foundations. Or not.
In the meantime, a lot of this 'labelling', 'conceptualization', 'classification' and 'boundary' business depends on where you want to draw the line, and why.
Property, money, narcissism, a personal belief in right and wrong -- or perhaps alternatively, an integrative, always expanding, vision of the enlightenment and evolution of mankind.
A distinction can be made between Gestalt Therapy the 'process' and Gestalt Therapy the 'structural content'.
Gestalt Therapy the process involves an unpredictable state of affairs, where nobody really knows what is really going to happen or where it is really going to end -- where the process of individual growth is going to 'dialectically evolve' to. 'Old boundaries' are constantly being broken down and 'new integrative boundaries' are constantly being formed. Call this life.
Now Gestalt Therapy as a 'network of systematic rules' and as a 'structural system containing a particular network of integrated concepts and terms' is quite a bit more 'anal retentive' and 'narcissistically protective' than Gestalt Therapy the process is.
Gestalt Therapy has its own ideational space and boundaries which can be differentiated from Psychoanalysis or Jungian Psychology or Adlerian Therapy or Rational-Emotive Therapy or Behaviorism or any of a hundred different schools of psychology and psychotherapy.
Again, I make the distinction between 'either/or' evolution vs. 'integrative evolution'. When a man impregnates a woman and a baby is created there is a mixture of 'either/or' evolution and 'integrative evolution' going on here. The child may have the ears of the father, the nose of the mother. The child may look exactly like the mother or the father. This is 'either/or' evolution. Perhaps the father's genes dominate, or the mother's genes dominate and the child almost looks like a clone of the parent with the dominant genes. Or the child can be seen to have a mixture of both parents genes and here we can see the process of 'integrative evolution'. The concept of 'biological diversity' is very much tied up to what I am calling here integrative evolution.
Now let us leave the world of biology and enter the world of philosophy, psychology, conceptuology, and/or ideology. The same two evolutionary processes exist with sometimes either/or evolution dominating, other times integrative evolution dominating.
Indeed, the whole ideational evolution process becomes more complicated -- and unfortunately often stagnated into non-evolution -- when you introduce such factors as: capitalism, money, property, corporations, patencies, people's livlihoods, etc...
With the additions of such factors, people not only get narcissistic about their money and their property and their choices of what they want to do -- they also get narcissistic about their ideas. Somewhere back in the 1980s or 90s, I called this phenomenon 'conceptual narcissism'.
Now here is the point: often conceptual evolution and conceptual narcissism collide and conflict with each other, do battle with each other, and become a dialectic in its own particular right, either good or bad, or both. Metaphorically speaking, one might ask the question: 'Which ideational gene is going to dominate? -- the 'narcissitic-either/or gene' or the 'integrative-evolution' gene?
Example. In the 1970s Jeffrey Masson was a fast-rising psychoanalyst and writer. He worked his way up the steep ranks of the many different Psychoanalytic Institutes in both North America and Europe. He got right up to the top -- to Anna Freud -- and was given free access to the Freud Archives. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Masson got into the Freud Archives and he didn't like what he was reading. The issue was Freud's abandonment of his 'traumacy and seduction theory' around 1896-1897. In its place, Freud developed his more (in)famous inter-related theories of distorted childhood memories, childhood sexuality and the Oedipal Complex.
Masson basically came to the conclusion that these latter three theories were garbage -- and that worse than that -- they tended to perpetuate the traumacy of female childhood sexual assault by 'non-legitimizing' them. That is, according to post-1900 Classical Psychoanalytic and Oedipal Theory, a woman's 'memory' of a childhood sexual assault and/or seduction would be taught by and to psychoanalysts to be generally and stereotpically 're-interpreted' as a 'childhood fantasy and distorted memory' due to the young girl's and/or later teenage girl's standard romantic and sexual infatuation with her father. Thus, very few female childhood sexual assaults were being interpreted as what they were -- real assaults. In Masson's words, they were basically being 'clinically suppressed -- and denied existence in the phenomenonology of the client'.
Thus, from a 'clinical interpretation' standpoint, there would be 'no more childhood sexual assaults' in Psychoanalysis because most, if not all, of them were being re-interpreted by psychoanalysts everywhere as 'distorted memories based on underlying female childhood sexuality fantasies'.
Masson broke this scandal open, first in the New York Times in the late 1970s, then in his hugely controversial book, 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory'. (1984, 1985, 1992 by Jeffrey Masson)
Not unexpectedly, Masson's book didn't go over very well at all with the many different Psychoanalytic Institutes. He was evicted from some and resigned from others. And now he is living in New Zealand and writing books about emotions in animals. No real resolution -- no dialectic conclusion and/or integration -- to the controversy.
Psychoanalysts defended themselves saying that they had the freedom to interpret childhood assaults as being real if they believed that one happened. Aside from this 'real and/or bogus resolution', the conflict seems to have bascially gone underground again. I cannot say for sure because I have not followed the various evolutions and/or non-evolutions of various Psychoanalytic schools of thought. I think many of them have discarded classical Oedipal theory and moved on to different schools of Object Relations and Self Theory. Some -- I do not know what percentage -- have remained loyal to Freud's original Classical/Oedipal theory.
Obviously, if you are a woman who knows that you were sexually assaulted as a child or young teenager, then I would probalby be thinking twice about engaging in Classical Psychoanalysis. There is definitely, in my mind, some element of truth in Masson's book -- the 'proportion' of truth to my present knowledge is still the subject of significant controversy.
In my opinion, the many Psychoanalytic Institutes should not have pushed Masson's book and thoughts aside so quickly without a full and democratic playout of the dialectic controversy. Indeed, writing as a post-Hegelian philosopher, I believe that they should have embraced the dialectic and brought a stale, stagnant sexist Orthodox, 'Classical' Psychoanalysis out of the Victorian age -- and into the age of feminine equality.
Some may say this has happened. Others may say that the whole issue was swept under the carpet. I tend to believe the latter. I have nothing to believe that Orthodox, Classical Psychoanalysis didn't simply retreat to its chauvanistic, paternalistic chambers -- and pretend that Jeffrey Masson's re-awakening of 'The Seduction Theory Controversy' never happened. They acted like most guilty politicians act in the midst of a narcissistic political scandal. Using the 'wait til it blows away' tactic, they try/tried to pretend that nothing happened, avoid/ed all journalists and news reporters -- and hope/d that the scandal will/would blow away from the headlines of all media outlets and public attention.
It has been about 17 years or so since I read Masson's 'Final Analysis': The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst (1991)-- a great read in my opinion about Toronto trained Jeffrey Masson's hugely successful and then completed thwarted attempts to breath fire and oxygen into 'a stagnant old men's patriarchal club'. I'm not sure whether it was coincidence or not -- this was about the time I left The Gestalt Institute too (1991) -- but when Masson left Psychoanalysis -- vicariously -- so did I. I was through with psychology and moving into philosophy.
Has 'dialectical determinism and/or freedom' led to any further evolution in Classical, Orthodox Psychoanalysis? I cannot tell you. It certainly needed to be 'feminized' in order to bring it into touch with the evolution of the female psyche, female philosophy, and equal rights in the latter part of the 20th century. I doubt very much that this happened which leaves me with the perhaps outdated impression that Classical Orthodox Psychoanalysis is going the same way as the dinosaur -- towards extinction. Left untouched, it was becoming more and more theoretically irrelevant -- if not downright toxic. This is a generalization to be sure -- perhaps an out of touch one if things have changed significantly since 1991 -- but as I said, I doubt if things have. If little had been done to revise the Classic Psychoanalytic perspective on 'The Oedipal/Electra Complex', 'childhood sexuality', and 'distorted unconscious memories' since Freud's death (1931), why would anything theoretically significant likely change Classical Psychoanalysis since 1991?
It is important to make some distinctions here. I am certainly not saying that Psychoanalysis as a whole is irrelevant or toxic. There are many different divisions and sub-divisions of Psychoanalysis some of which are developing more meaningful lines of thought than others in my opinion. Personally, I would say that there are five main divisions of Psychoanalysis, one of which is suppressed which is Freud's 'Traumacy theory' before he overgenereralized and called it his 'Seduction Theory' (which was basically a sugar-coated way of saying his 'Sexual Assault' Theory). This was around 1895-1896. By 1897, Freud was starting the process of abanadoning his Traumacy and Seduction (Sexual Assault) Theory altogether. Was 'the kitchen getting too hot' for Freud -- as Masson has suggested. Or did Freud find worthy clinical evidence to suggest that these 'so-called female adult memories of childhood seductions and/or sexual assaults' were simply not true? Or elements of both? I believe in the latter. I believe that there was a series of human 'psycho-dramas' that were going down involving Freud and his female patients that contained a mixture of true and false memories, traumatic and narcissistic memories, traumatic and narcissistic adult encounters...in short, a snap shot of human life in general with all its myriad of intertwining complexities. Life and nature do not believe in 'one-sided, compartmentalized, narcissitic theories' made up by any one man or woman -- even if the man's name was Sigmund Freud who is still idealized and worshipped by many unconditional, Classic, Orthodox Psychoanalytic followers today for the creative brilliance of his ideas, some of which are worthy of this degree of respect, others of which should be 'committed to flames' (to once again use David Hume's immortal words) before they propogate any more forms of toxic psychotherapy into our society today -- just as 'The Traumacy and Seduction Theory' taken too far can as well.
When I am talking about Classical, Orthodox Psychoanalysis then, I am talking about 'the oldest of the old, orthodox guardians of Freud'; I am not talking about Melanie Klein's brand of Psychoanalysis (Object Relations), nor Ronald Fairbairn's brand of Psycoanalysis (a second brand of Object Relations), nor Heinz Kohut's brand of Psychoanalysis (the beginning of Self Psychology in Psychoanalysis -- some of my present ideas on 'healthy' vs. 'unhealthy' narcissism were being developed in the mid to late 1980s just about the same time I first bumped into Kohut's work on narcissism. Kohut had already developed this line of thinking well before me -- he died in 1981 -- nevertheless, it was reinforcing that some of my ideas were going down the path of more liberal, current, rebellious psychoanalysts. We will talk more about the Seduction Theory Controversy at a later date.
....................................................................................
Heinz Kohut May 3, 1913 – October 8, 1981 is best known for his development of Self Psychology, a school of thought within psychodynamic/psychoanalytic theory, psychiatrist Heinz Kohut's contributions transformed the modern practice of analytic and dynamic treatment approaches.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Development of Self Psychology
3 Historical Context
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Early life
Kohut was born on May 3, 1913 to an assimilated Jewish family and received his MD in neurology at the University of Vienna. Like many Jews, including Freud, Kohut fled Nazi occupation of his native Vienna, Austria in 1939. Kohut settled in Chicago and became a prominent member of the Chicago Institute of Psychoanalysis. Kohut was such a strong proponent of the traditional psychoanalytic perspective that was dominant in the U.S. that he jokingly called himself "Mr. Psychoanalysis."[1]
[edit] Development of Self Psychology
In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, Freudian analysis was too focused on individual guilt and failed to reflect the new zeitgeist (the emotional interests and needs of people struggling with issues of identity, meaning, ideals, and self-expression). [2] Though he initially tried to remain true to the traditional analytic viewpoint with which he had become associated and viewed the self as separate but coexistent to the ego, Kohut later rejected Freud's structural theory of the id, ego, and superego. He then developed his ideas around what he called the tripartite (three-part) self.[1]
According to Kohut, this three-part self can only develop when the needs of one's "self states," including one's sense of worth and well-being, are met in relationships with others. In contrast to traditional psychoanalysis that focused on drives (instinctual motivations of sex and aggression), internal conflicts, and fantasies, self psychology thus placed a great deal of emphasis on the vicissitudes of relationships.
Kohut demonstrated his interest in how we develop our "sense of self" using narcissism as a model. If a person is narcissistic, it will allow him or her to suppress feelings of low self-esteem. By talking highly of himself or herself, the person can eliminate his or her sense of worthlessness.
[edit] Historical Context
Kohut expanded on his theory during the 1970s and 1980s, a time in which aggressive individuality, overindulgence, greed, and restlessness left many people feeling empty, fragile, and fragmented.[1]
Perhaps because of its positive, open, and empathic stance on human nature as a whole as well as the individual, self psychology is considered one of the "four psychologies" (the others being Drive Theory, ego psychology, and object relations); that is, one of the primary theories on which modern dynamic therapists and theorists rely. According to biographer Charles Strozier, "Kohut...may well have saved psychoanalysis from itself."[3] Without his focus on empathic relationships, dynamic theory might well have faded in comparison to one of the other major psychology orientations (which include humanism and cognitive behavioral therapy) that were being developed around the same time.
Also according to Strozier, Kohut's book The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Analysis of the Treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorders [4] "had a significant impact on the field by extending Freud's theory of narcissism and introducing what Kohut called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and idealization." In other words, children need to idealize and emotionally "sink into" and identify with the idealized competence of admired figures. They also need to have their self-worth reflected back ("mirrored") by empathic and caregiving others. These experiences allow them to thereby learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary for the development of a healthy (cohesive, vigorous) sense of self. For example, therapists become the idealized parent and through transference the patient begins to get the things he has missed. The patient also has the opportunity to reflect on how early the troubling relationship led to personality problems. Narcissism arises from poor attachment at an early age. Freud also believed that narcissism hides low self esteem, and that therapy will reparent them through transference and they begin to get the things they missed. Later, Kohut added the third major self-object theme (and he dropped the hyphen in self-object) of alter-ego/twinship, the theme of being part of a larger human identification with others.
Though dynamic theory tends to place emphasis on childhood development, Kohut believed that the need for such self-object relationships does not end at childhood but continues throughout all stages of a person's life.[2]
In the final week of his life, knowing that his time was at an end, Kohut spent as much time as he could with his family and friends. He fell into a coma on the evening of October 7, 1981, and died of cancer on the morning of October 8.
..................................................................................
Once again I believe in the value of the dialectic and in smart theorists and therapists using the dialectic to full functional advantage. From my perspective -- and I am far from the first person to say this -- it seems that Classical Psychoanalysis if it wants to stay alive and to have any kind of credibility and trust with the general public, especially women, needs to 'feminize' itself and to discard all ideas and practices that discriminate against women in order to bring it into the 21st century. Today, Orthodox, Classical Psychoanalysis is about as culturally relevant as most strict, orhthodox forms of religion are. Living in a past that has long passed them by.
Another example. What would happen if a psychoanalyst ever decided to abandon his or her use of the 'therapeutic couch' and borrow instead the 'hotseat' from Gestalt Therapy? Would this psychoanalyst still be called a psychoanalyst? Probably not by his psychoanalytic peers and superiors. Would he or she more appropriately be called a 'Gestalt Psychoanalyst'? Perls went this direction -- trained originally I believe in Kleinian Psychoanalysis (the beginning of Object Relations) -- until he decided at some point to dump the 'couch' and develop the 'hotseat and empty chair technique. In doing this, Perls 'existentialized' Psychoanalysis. Soon he would call himself a 'Gestalt Therapist'.
Integrative evolutions have happed often enough in the psychotherapy business, as much as they are often discouraged, even blacklisted and scandalized. Some theorists and therapists have integrated Adlerian Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Some theorists and therapists have integrated various forms of Cognitive Therapy with Gestalt Therapy. Perls partly did this himself. He liked Korysbski and General Semantics.
Back in the 1980s, I was integrating Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis -- which is how I got 'GAP' Psychology. Cognitive Therapy, humanistic-existentialism, and Jungian psychology also eventually had an impact on my thinking.
Conceptualizations, classifications, and labels can be stretched or re-tightened according to our wishes and agenda. It could be argued that Freud was a Gestalt Therapist before he was a Psychoanalyst -- much of Freud's early work in the 1990s on traumacy theory could easily be viewed as the real foundation of Gestalt Therapy (before Freud decided to go a different theoretical direction). Freud's Traumacy Theory is just as relevant today as it was when he created back in the late 1880s and early to mid 1890s. It should not have been abandoned, just modified -- which many Psychoanalysts say is exactly what happened. I don't believe them. The 'modification' if that's what it was at the time, became a more or less 'fixed theoretical reality' over time. By the early 1900s, the traumacy was being left further and further behind. It shouldn't have been. Using the Hegelian dialectic, I would have developed a 'narcissistic-traumacy' theory. In fact, I will develop this theory as I move along here. Psychoanalysis needs to integrate; not 'compartmentalize' into a increasing number of 'either/or' theories.
What is the moral of everything that is being said in this essay. How about this?
When you are all ready to get your shorts tied tightly in a knot and turn purple with rage over protecting an idea, a concept, a theory, a philosophy, a paradigm, an ideology, a religous belief, ask yourself this: Can integrative evolution take me to a better place that is better for me and better for the people around me? And if so, then why am I holding on so tightly, so emotionaly, to an idea that may be a better idea once it is blended with other different and maybe even opposing ideas.
Every seen a parent and a child fighting over 'curfew'? Being a taxi driver at one time, I have seen or heard of some of the worst fights you can possibly imagine when it comes to teenage girls battling with parents over 'freedom vs. control and safety (curfew)' isues. 15 year old girls evicted from their homes. Come on, what's with this? Rage is probably usually the best personal indicator that it may be time to think 'negotiate, compromise, integrate'; not get stuck in the personal egotism and/or ethics of 'I am right, you are wrong'. If you want to save your relationship with your teenage son or daughter, maintain your ethical boundaries unless they are seriously outdated in which case you might want to re-think them. But regardless, be willing to negotiate without 'caving in' on your principles, and choose 'contact and immediacy' over maintaining your inflexible, righteous, 'either/or' pride.
A Post-Script: I initially wrote this paper almost a year ago. Now I feel like a hypocrite. Last August I got into a stupid but severe argument on the internet with my 18 year old daughter over the end of my support payments to her mother because she was out of school and working. Not reaching any common ground on our beliefs and principles, the fight left us estranged for the last nine months. That's where pride takes you when two stubborn people -- or groups of people -- cannot negotiate and integrate any common ground between them. I say this on the eve of a TTC strike that just got legislated back to work.
Left unbridled by compassion, empathy, and ethical fairness, human righteousness and narcissism knows no boundaries. The irony is this: The tighter a person's conceptual boundaries are, the more all-encompassing is likely to be the extent of his or her righteous, egotistical narcissism.
-- dgb, originally written May 20th, 2007; modified and updated April 27-28th, 2008.
I am in the process of writing a very large integrative philosophy-psychology work consisting of a network of some 50 plus blogsites in various stages of development from almost finished to not started yet. The project is called 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology...'. Each 'floor' of Hegel's Hotel (blogsite) will have a varying number of essays on/in it -- ranging from about 10 to 30 essays. Using simple multiplication, that means I am shooting to finish about 1000 philosophical and psychological essays -- let us say by the time I reach 60 years old, touch wood, God willing. Each essay on each floor-blogsite will metaphorically be considered to make up a 'room' in Hegel's Hotel. Thus, I am shooting to finish 'construction' on a thousand rooms in Hegel's Hotel. (So far, I've probably completed between 100 and 150.)
Within the confines of these some 50 plus different blogsites or floors of Hegel's Hotel, I will be -- and/or have been -- writing on a wide assortment of different topics from introductions to dialectical philosophy to freedom vs. determinism to awareness and contact to narcissism to the study of Ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy to the study of epistemology, the study of humanistic-existentialism, the study of ethics, the study of business and economics, the study of politics, the study of law, the study of the Enlightenment, the study of science and medicine, the study of romanticism and the arts, the study of spirituality and religion, and the study of psychology.
Obviously, I don't have enough time in my life to go hugely in depth into each and everyone of these areas. However, within each realm, I will bring my unique, post-Hegelian, integrative approach to what I want to write about and connect each essay, each blogsite, to my overall thesis which is that 'integrative dialectical evolution' is a process that can be taught and applied to all areas of human culture, living, and activity in a way that is often if not usually superior to an 'adversarial form of righteous-either/or philosophy and lifestyle'. This may not seem like a profoundly new or provocative thesis but I think that if you have the patience and perseverence -- fueled hopefully by more of my good writing than bad -- you will see that I have some unique contributions to offer the study of philosophy and psychology. I hope -- indeed expect -- that there will be good reading and value for both introductory and advanced philosophy and psychology students and professionals alike.
There is a sense in which I could very easily be called a 'Gestalt philosopher'. For a period of 12 years -- from 1979 to 1991 with 'gaps of non-involvement' at different times, I was, at different times during this overall time period, very intensely and intimately tied up to what I was learning at the Gestalt Institute in Toronto. I had good contacts with a lot of friends I met there, and had a lot of respect for the teachings of Gestalt therarists Jorge Rosner, Joanne Greenham, Tony Key, and others.
However, there is a sense in which I am kind of like the Gestaltist 'prodigal son' if you will -- I left my involvement with them in 1991, and I haven't been back except I think for one open house, since. That is 16 years that I have not been involved with the Gestalt Institute in Toronto.
Now here I am writing a 'philosophical treatise and forum' called 'Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...'. The treatise and forum is being written entirely on the internet as I write, and consists of a network of 26 different but associated blogsites which I call 'different floors of Hegel's Hotel', each with around 10-25 essays per blogsite/floor.
Now, yes there is a heavy Gestalt influence in the work as a whole, and in each and every essay that I have written. However, there are many other influences as well: Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Adler, Korzybski, Hawakawa, Erich Fromm, Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand, Schopenhauer, Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Jefferson, Diderot, Montasquieu, Kant, Fichte, Locke, Spinoza, the Han Philosophers, Heraclitus, Anaxamander...
So this is not all about Gestalt Therapy applied to philosophy. And yet in a partial sense -- a good size partial sense -- it is. It is not entirely by accident that many of my ..philosophical influences are the same ones who influenced Perls and the evolution of Gestalt Therapy -- for example, Freud, Jung, Korzybski, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heraclitus...
It was through studying Gestalt Therapy that I first became seriously connected to Hegel's philosophical work -- and it was this connection, this bridge if you will, that led me backwards from the study of psychology into the study of philosophy. I largely left behind my study of psychology in the 1991, and have been studying philosophy -- through books and the internet -- from 1991 to 2007, still continuing.
There is a sense in which almost everything I have developed in this network of blogsites, in each essay, I learned either from watching or experiencing the 'hotseat' in Gestalt Therapy. But the hotseat was a therapeutic invention by Perls that combined the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis) with Nietzschean urgency and Kierkgaardian immediacy. The purpose of the hotseat and empt chair technique -- one chair with the therapeutic client in it, the other seat facing him, empty -- was to help a person 'to gain better contact with a person who wasn't present, or to gain better contact within the client's own personality between a dominant side and an opposing more suppressed and neglected side. Through this process, a person 'dialectically alienated' within him or herself could work hard in the hotseat with openess, honesty, and immediacy to become more 'dialectically integrated' through the therapeutic synthesis of opposing parts in his or her personality.
DGB Philosophy does may not generally include the raw immediacy of a hot seat but it does contain the process of 'dialectical opposition', 'dialectical contact', 'dialectical negotiation', and 'dialectical integration'.
In DGB Philosophy, we are stepping away from the dynamics of the human psche in the rawest immediacy of the hot seat and empty chair work. However, we are expanding this process to each and every part of human culture and activity -- and then we will come back and connect what we have learned from this philosophical adventure into such areas as narcissism, epistemology, ethics, business and economics, politics, law, science and medicine, spirituality and religion with the DGB perspective (model, theory) on the structure and dynamics of the human psyche.
What goes around comes around. What is projected (viewed as if it is a 'movie' out there) is introjected (identified with, internalized) and/or visa versa. The movie or 'psycho-drama' -- both external and internal -- is us.
How narcissistic can we get? The world -- and particularly man's culture both collectively and privately -- is very much a reflection of a man's character, and in both a good and a bad sense, at the same time, his or her personal narcissism.
Personal and collective narcissism very much dominates the human psyche. Which is not to say that there isn't an important place and a need for the balance and equillibrium of the opposite of human narcissism which includes such things as: altruism, generosity, caring, love, social sensitivity, empathy, helping one's friends and neighbours, caring about the state of the environment, and the like.
There is an important place for a good balance of both narcissism and altruism in both man's psyche, and in the projections of his or her psyche into his private and collective culture, including the structure and process of any human philosophy, psychology, politics, and the rest that he may invent.
But still, looking around us for the most part, one cannot help to think and feel that human narcissism dominates -- both in and beyond our Canadian and American culture.
I watch politicians fight with each other in parliament, treat each other disrespectfully, as each and everyone of them chases after a narcissistic, either/or, right or wrong, ideology -- as if theirs was the only 'right' ideology on the face of the earth. Sometimes the 'game' they seem to be playing, the 'show' they seem to be putting on, reminds me of something I might see on television wrestling. But if it is not all 'game' and 'show' and politicians actually believe that they are being 'righteously real', then someone needs to show these politicians how to better work with each other, not against each other.
The dialectic can be used righteously, manipulatively and maliciously --'narcissisticly' is the word I will generally use (see my essays on narcissism) -- or it can be used judiciously and integratively, utilizing a combination of reason, compassion, common sense, empathy, humanism, ethics, a balance of personal assertiveness (and in this regard narcissism in a good sense to the extent that it is kept in line by giving room for the rights and wishes of others) with social altruism.
The same goes for corporations vs. unions or non-union employees, natural health medicine vs. standard, orthodox Western medicine, sports owners vs. athletes taking into account the fans, indeed, any type of human conflict where people have a choice between acting reasonably with each other vs. going off ballistically with each other because they can't see past their own personal narcissism.
As for the issue of my 'classification' as a philosopher, and whether I can or should be called a 'Gestalt philosopher' -- someone who has learned from Gestalt Therapy and extrapolated on these lessons into the realm of philosophy, politics, medicine, religion, art, and the like -- well that is a dialect in its own right between me and members of The Gestalt Institute who I haven't really talked to since 1991. The prodigal son may one day return back to some of his main roots and foundations. Or not.
In the meantime, a lot of this 'labelling', 'conceptualization', 'classification' and 'boundary' business depends on where you want to draw the line, and why.
Property, money, narcissism, a personal belief in right and wrong -- or perhaps alternatively, an integrative, always expanding, vision of the enlightenment and evolution of mankind.
A distinction can be made between Gestalt Therapy the 'process' and Gestalt Therapy the 'structural content'.
Gestalt Therapy the process involves an unpredictable state of affairs, where nobody really knows what is really going to happen or where it is really going to end -- where the process of individual growth is going to 'dialectically evolve' to. 'Old boundaries' are constantly being broken down and 'new integrative boundaries' are constantly being formed. Call this life.
Now Gestalt Therapy as a 'network of systematic rules' and as a 'structural system containing a particular network of integrated concepts and terms' is quite a bit more 'anal retentive' and 'narcissistically protective' than Gestalt Therapy the process is.
Gestalt Therapy has its own ideational space and boundaries which can be differentiated from Psychoanalysis or Jungian Psychology or Adlerian Therapy or Rational-Emotive Therapy or Behaviorism or any of a hundred different schools of psychology and psychotherapy.
Again, I make the distinction between 'either/or' evolution vs. 'integrative evolution'. When a man impregnates a woman and a baby is created there is a mixture of 'either/or' evolution and 'integrative evolution' going on here. The child may have the ears of the father, the nose of the mother. The child may look exactly like the mother or the father. This is 'either/or' evolution. Perhaps the father's genes dominate, or the mother's genes dominate and the child almost looks like a clone of the parent with the dominant genes. Or the child can be seen to have a mixture of both parents genes and here we can see the process of 'integrative evolution'. The concept of 'biological diversity' is very much tied up to what I am calling here integrative evolution.
Now let us leave the world of biology and enter the world of philosophy, psychology, conceptuology, and/or ideology. The same two evolutionary processes exist with sometimes either/or evolution dominating, other times integrative evolution dominating.
Indeed, the whole ideational evolution process becomes more complicated -- and unfortunately often stagnated into non-evolution -- when you introduce such factors as: capitalism, money, property, corporations, patencies, people's livlihoods, etc...
With the additions of such factors, people not only get narcissistic about their money and their property and their choices of what they want to do -- they also get narcissistic about their ideas. Somewhere back in the 1980s or 90s, I called this phenomenon 'conceptual narcissism'.
Now here is the point: often conceptual evolution and conceptual narcissism collide and conflict with each other, do battle with each other, and become a dialectic in its own particular right, either good or bad, or both. Metaphorically speaking, one might ask the question: 'Which ideational gene is going to dominate? -- the 'narcissitic-either/or gene' or the 'integrative-evolution' gene?
Example. In the 1970s Jeffrey Masson was a fast-rising psychoanalyst and writer. He worked his way up the steep ranks of the many different Psychoanalytic Institutes in both North America and Europe. He got right up to the top -- to Anna Freud -- and was given free access to the Freud Archives. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Masson got into the Freud Archives and he didn't like what he was reading. The issue was Freud's abandonment of his 'traumacy and seduction theory' around 1896-1897. In its place, Freud developed his more (in)famous inter-related theories of distorted childhood memories, childhood sexuality and the Oedipal Complex.
Masson basically came to the conclusion that these latter three theories were garbage -- and that worse than that -- they tended to perpetuate the traumacy of female childhood sexual assault by 'non-legitimizing' them. That is, according to post-1900 Classical Psychoanalytic and Oedipal Theory, a woman's 'memory' of a childhood sexual assault and/or seduction would be taught by and to psychoanalysts to be generally and stereotpically 're-interpreted' as a 'childhood fantasy and distorted memory' due to the young girl's and/or later teenage girl's standard romantic and sexual infatuation with her father. Thus, very few female childhood sexual assaults were being interpreted as what they were -- real assaults. In Masson's words, they were basically being 'clinically suppressed -- and denied existence in the phenomenonology of the client'.
Thus, from a 'clinical interpretation' standpoint, there would be 'no more childhood sexual assaults' in Psychoanalysis because most, if not all, of them were being re-interpreted by psychoanalysts everywhere as 'distorted memories based on underlying female childhood sexuality fantasies'.
Masson broke this scandal open, first in the New York Times in the late 1970s, then in his hugely controversial book, 'The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory'. (1984, 1985, 1992 by Jeffrey Masson)
Not unexpectedly, Masson's book didn't go over very well at all with the many different Psychoanalytic Institutes. He was evicted from some and resigned from others. And now he is living in New Zealand and writing books about emotions in animals. No real resolution -- no dialectic conclusion and/or integration -- to the controversy.
Psychoanalysts defended themselves saying that they had the freedom to interpret childhood assaults as being real if they believed that one happened. Aside from this 'real and/or bogus resolution', the conflict seems to have bascially gone underground again. I cannot say for sure because I have not followed the various evolutions and/or non-evolutions of various Psychoanalytic schools of thought. I think many of them have discarded classical Oedipal theory and moved on to different schools of Object Relations and Self Theory. Some -- I do not know what percentage -- have remained loyal to Freud's original Classical/Oedipal theory.
Obviously, if you are a woman who knows that you were sexually assaulted as a child or young teenager, then I would probalby be thinking twice about engaging in Classical Psychoanalysis. There is definitely, in my mind, some element of truth in Masson's book -- the 'proportion' of truth to my present knowledge is still the subject of significant controversy.
In my opinion, the many Psychoanalytic Institutes should not have pushed Masson's book and thoughts aside so quickly without a full and democratic playout of the dialectic controversy. Indeed, writing as a post-Hegelian philosopher, I believe that they should have embraced the dialectic and brought a stale, stagnant sexist Orthodox, 'Classical' Psychoanalysis out of the Victorian age -- and into the age of feminine equality.
Some may say this has happened. Others may say that the whole issue was swept under the carpet. I tend to believe the latter. I have nothing to believe that Orthodox, Classical Psychoanalysis didn't simply retreat to its chauvanistic, paternalistic chambers -- and pretend that Jeffrey Masson's re-awakening of 'The Seduction Theory Controversy' never happened. They acted like most guilty politicians act in the midst of a narcissistic political scandal. Using the 'wait til it blows away' tactic, they try/tried to pretend that nothing happened, avoid/ed all journalists and news reporters -- and hope/d that the scandal will/would blow away from the headlines of all media outlets and public attention.
It has been about 17 years or so since I read Masson's 'Final Analysis': The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst (1991)-- a great read in my opinion about Toronto trained Jeffrey Masson's hugely successful and then completed thwarted attempts to breath fire and oxygen into 'a stagnant old men's patriarchal club'. I'm not sure whether it was coincidence or not -- this was about the time I left The Gestalt Institute too (1991) -- but when Masson left Psychoanalysis -- vicariously -- so did I. I was through with psychology and moving into philosophy.
Has 'dialectical determinism and/or freedom' led to any further evolution in Classical, Orthodox Psychoanalysis? I cannot tell you. It certainly needed to be 'feminized' in order to bring it into touch with the evolution of the female psyche, female philosophy, and equal rights in the latter part of the 20th century. I doubt very much that this happened which leaves me with the perhaps outdated impression that Classical Orthodox Psychoanalysis is going the same way as the dinosaur -- towards extinction. Left untouched, it was becoming more and more theoretically irrelevant -- if not downright toxic. This is a generalization to be sure -- perhaps an out of touch one if things have changed significantly since 1991 -- but as I said, I doubt if things have. If little had been done to revise the Classic Psychoanalytic perspective on 'The Oedipal/Electra Complex', 'childhood sexuality', and 'distorted unconscious memories' since Freud's death (1931), why would anything theoretically significant likely change Classical Psychoanalysis since 1991?
It is important to make some distinctions here. I am certainly not saying that Psychoanalysis as a whole is irrelevant or toxic. There are many different divisions and sub-divisions of Psychoanalysis some of which are developing more meaningful lines of thought than others in my opinion. Personally, I would say that there are five main divisions of Psychoanalysis, one of which is suppressed which is Freud's 'Traumacy theory' before he overgenereralized and called it his 'Seduction Theory' (which was basically a sugar-coated way of saying his 'Sexual Assault' Theory). This was around 1895-1896. By 1897, Freud was starting the process of abanadoning his Traumacy and Seduction (Sexual Assault) Theory altogether. Was 'the kitchen getting too hot' for Freud -- as Masson has suggested. Or did Freud find worthy clinical evidence to suggest that these 'so-called female adult memories of childhood seductions and/or sexual assaults' were simply not true? Or elements of both? I believe in the latter. I believe that there was a series of human 'psycho-dramas' that were going down involving Freud and his female patients that contained a mixture of true and false memories, traumatic and narcissistic memories, traumatic and narcissistic adult encounters...in short, a snap shot of human life in general with all its myriad of intertwining complexities. Life and nature do not believe in 'one-sided, compartmentalized, narcissitic theories' made up by any one man or woman -- even if the man's name was Sigmund Freud who is still idealized and worshipped by many unconditional, Classic, Orthodox Psychoanalytic followers today for the creative brilliance of his ideas, some of which are worthy of this degree of respect, others of which should be 'committed to flames' (to once again use David Hume's immortal words) before they propogate any more forms of toxic psychotherapy into our society today -- just as 'The Traumacy and Seduction Theory' taken too far can as well.
When I am talking about Classical, Orthodox Psychoanalysis then, I am talking about 'the oldest of the old, orthodox guardians of Freud'; I am not talking about Melanie Klein's brand of Psychoanalysis (Object Relations), nor Ronald Fairbairn's brand of Psycoanalysis (a second brand of Object Relations), nor Heinz Kohut's brand of Psychoanalysis (the beginning of Self Psychology in Psychoanalysis -- some of my present ideas on 'healthy' vs. 'unhealthy' narcissism were being developed in the mid to late 1980s just about the same time I first bumped into Kohut's work on narcissism. Kohut had already developed this line of thinking well before me -- he died in 1981 -- nevertheless, it was reinforcing that some of my ideas were going down the path of more liberal, current, rebellious psychoanalysts. We will talk more about the Seduction Theory Controversy at a later date.
....................................................................................
Heinz Kohut May 3, 1913 – October 8, 1981 is best known for his development of Self Psychology, a school of thought within psychodynamic/psychoanalytic theory, psychiatrist Heinz Kohut's contributions transformed the modern practice of analytic and dynamic treatment approaches.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Development of Self Psychology
3 Historical Context
4 References
5 See also
6 External links
[edit] Early life
Kohut was born on May 3, 1913 to an assimilated Jewish family and received his MD in neurology at the University of Vienna. Like many Jews, including Freud, Kohut fled Nazi occupation of his native Vienna, Austria in 1939. Kohut settled in Chicago and became a prominent member of the Chicago Institute of Psychoanalysis. Kohut was such a strong proponent of the traditional psychoanalytic perspective that was dominant in the U.S. that he jokingly called himself "Mr. Psychoanalysis."[1]
[edit] Development of Self Psychology
In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, Freudian analysis was too focused on individual guilt and failed to reflect the new zeitgeist (the emotional interests and needs of people struggling with issues of identity, meaning, ideals, and self-expression). [2] Though he initially tried to remain true to the traditional analytic viewpoint with which he had become associated and viewed the self as separate but coexistent to the ego, Kohut later rejected Freud's structural theory of the id, ego, and superego. He then developed his ideas around what he called the tripartite (three-part) self.[1]
According to Kohut, this three-part self can only develop when the needs of one's "self states," including one's sense of worth and well-being, are met in relationships with others. In contrast to traditional psychoanalysis that focused on drives (instinctual motivations of sex and aggression), internal conflicts, and fantasies, self psychology thus placed a great deal of emphasis on the vicissitudes of relationships.
Kohut demonstrated his interest in how we develop our "sense of self" using narcissism as a model. If a person is narcissistic, it will allow him or her to suppress feelings of low self-esteem. By talking highly of himself or herself, the person can eliminate his or her sense of worthlessness.
[edit] Historical Context
Kohut expanded on his theory during the 1970s and 1980s, a time in which aggressive individuality, overindulgence, greed, and restlessness left many people feeling empty, fragile, and fragmented.[1]
Perhaps because of its positive, open, and empathic stance on human nature as a whole as well as the individual, self psychology is considered one of the "four psychologies" (the others being Drive Theory, ego psychology, and object relations); that is, one of the primary theories on which modern dynamic therapists and theorists rely. According to biographer Charles Strozier, "Kohut...may well have saved psychoanalysis from itself."[3] Without his focus on empathic relationships, dynamic theory might well have faded in comparison to one of the other major psychology orientations (which include humanism and cognitive behavioral therapy) that were being developed around the same time.
Also according to Strozier, Kohut's book The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Analysis of the Treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorders [4] "had a significant impact on the field by extending Freud's theory of narcissism and introducing what Kohut called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and idealization." In other words, children need to idealize and emotionally "sink into" and identify with the idealized competence of admired figures. They also need to have their self-worth reflected back ("mirrored") by empathic and caregiving others. These experiences allow them to thereby learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary for the development of a healthy (cohesive, vigorous) sense of self. For example, therapists become the idealized parent and through transference the patient begins to get the things he has missed. The patient also has the opportunity to reflect on how early the troubling relationship led to personality problems. Narcissism arises from poor attachment at an early age. Freud also believed that narcissism hides low self esteem, and that therapy will reparent them through transference and they begin to get the things they missed. Later, Kohut added the third major self-object theme (and he dropped the hyphen in self-object) of alter-ego/twinship, the theme of being part of a larger human identification with others.
Though dynamic theory tends to place emphasis on childhood development, Kohut believed that the need for such self-object relationships does not end at childhood but continues throughout all stages of a person's life.[2]
In the final week of his life, knowing that his time was at an end, Kohut spent as much time as he could with his family and friends. He fell into a coma on the evening of October 7, 1981, and died of cancer on the morning of October 8.
..................................................................................
Once again I believe in the value of the dialectic and in smart theorists and therapists using the dialectic to full functional advantage. From my perspective -- and I am far from the first person to say this -- it seems that Classical Psychoanalysis if it wants to stay alive and to have any kind of credibility and trust with the general public, especially women, needs to 'feminize' itself and to discard all ideas and practices that discriminate against women in order to bring it into the 21st century. Today, Orthodox, Classical Psychoanalysis is about as culturally relevant as most strict, orhthodox forms of religion are. Living in a past that has long passed them by.
Another example. What would happen if a psychoanalyst ever decided to abandon his or her use of the 'therapeutic couch' and borrow instead the 'hotseat' from Gestalt Therapy? Would this psychoanalyst still be called a psychoanalyst? Probably not by his psychoanalytic peers and superiors. Would he or she more appropriately be called a 'Gestalt Psychoanalyst'? Perls went this direction -- trained originally I believe in Kleinian Psychoanalysis (the beginning of Object Relations) -- until he decided at some point to dump the 'couch' and develop the 'hotseat and empty chair technique. In doing this, Perls 'existentialized' Psychoanalysis. Soon he would call himself a 'Gestalt Therapist'.
Integrative evolutions have happed often enough in the psychotherapy business, as much as they are often discouraged, even blacklisted and scandalized. Some theorists and therapists have integrated Adlerian Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Some theorists and therapists have integrated various forms of Cognitive Therapy with Gestalt Therapy. Perls partly did this himself. He liked Korysbski and General Semantics.
Back in the 1980s, I was integrating Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis -- which is how I got 'GAP' Psychology. Cognitive Therapy, humanistic-existentialism, and Jungian psychology also eventually had an impact on my thinking.
Conceptualizations, classifications, and labels can be stretched or re-tightened according to our wishes and agenda. It could be argued that Freud was a Gestalt Therapist before he was a Psychoanalyst -- much of Freud's early work in the 1990s on traumacy theory could easily be viewed as the real foundation of Gestalt Therapy (before Freud decided to go a different theoretical direction). Freud's Traumacy Theory is just as relevant today as it was when he created back in the late 1880s and early to mid 1890s. It should not have been abandoned, just modified -- which many Psychoanalysts say is exactly what happened. I don't believe them. The 'modification' if that's what it was at the time, became a more or less 'fixed theoretical reality' over time. By the early 1900s, the traumacy was being left further and further behind. It shouldn't have been. Using the Hegelian dialectic, I would have developed a 'narcissistic-traumacy' theory. In fact, I will develop this theory as I move along here. Psychoanalysis needs to integrate; not 'compartmentalize' into a increasing number of 'either/or' theories.
What is the moral of everything that is being said in this essay. How about this?
When you are all ready to get your shorts tied tightly in a knot and turn purple with rage over protecting an idea, a concept, a theory, a philosophy, a paradigm, an ideology, a religous belief, ask yourself this: Can integrative evolution take me to a better place that is better for me and better for the people around me? And if so, then why am I holding on so tightly, so emotionaly, to an idea that may be a better idea once it is blended with other different and maybe even opposing ideas.
Every seen a parent and a child fighting over 'curfew'? Being a taxi driver at one time, I have seen or heard of some of the worst fights you can possibly imagine when it comes to teenage girls battling with parents over 'freedom vs. control and safety (curfew)' isues. 15 year old girls evicted from their homes. Come on, what's with this? Rage is probably usually the best personal indicator that it may be time to think 'negotiate, compromise, integrate'; not get stuck in the personal egotism and/or ethics of 'I am right, you are wrong'. If you want to save your relationship with your teenage son or daughter, maintain your ethical boundaries unless they are seriously outdated in which case you might want to re-think them. But regardless, be willing to negotiate without 'caving in' on your principles, and choose 'contact and immediacy' over maintaining your inflexible, righteous, 'either/or' pride.
A Post-Script: I initially wrote this paper almost a year ago. Now I feel like a hypocrite. Last August I got into a stupid but severe argument on the internet with my 18 year old daughter over the end of my support payments to her mother because she was out of school and working. Not reaching any common ground on our beliefs and principles, the fight left us estranged for the last nine months. That's where pride takes you when two stubborn people -- or groups of people -- cannot negotiate and integrate any common ground between them. I say this on the eve of a TTC strike that just got legislated back to work.
Left unbridled by compassion, empathy, and ethical fairness, human righteousness and narcissism knows no boundaries. The irony is this: The tighter a person's conceptual boundaries are, the more all-encompassing is likely to be the extent of his or her righteous, egotistical narcissism.
-- dgb, originally written May 20th, 2007; modified and updated April 27-28th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)